Ceilings

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

That's because he didn't.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

That's because he didn't.

I wondered about that.  I've also heard that Romney won 52% of the gay vote.

[Virginiá]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the thing here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the problem here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

[Virginiá]

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

No, I stated that there were particular reasons they went for Romney over Obama. We won't have a constant recession or a new, massive social program unliked by these kids parents happening in the 1-2 years prior to every election. A lot of people turned on Democrats in 2010 and white voters in particular in 2012. Voters turning on parties en masse like that doesn't tend to happen frequently.

He's saying they will be swing voters in the near future, when there is nothing to suggest they will be perpetually bouncing around. The Republican party's platform is more geared towards older religious white people, not a heavily diverse Millennial generation who actually believes in things such as gay marriage, climate change, education funding, no constant tax breaks for the wealthy, amnesty and so on.

Further, he suggested we are entering a period of Republican dominance, which is highly unlikely. The Republican party, as I stated, doesn't share the same position on issues as the younger generation, is far more disliked than the Democratic party (32% favorable to 48% favorable for Democratic party), and is fighting a massively growing non-white voting population that goes heavy Democrat. A party doesn't gain influence into the future by going against most issues the newer generation(s) care about.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

No, I stated that there were particular reasons they went for Romney over Obama. We won't have a constant recession or a new, massive social program unliked by these kids parents happening in the 1-2 years prior to every election. A lot of people turned on Democrats in 2010 and white voters in particular in 2012. Voters turning on parties en masse like that doesn't tend to happen frequently.

He's saying they will be swing voters in the near future, when there is nothing to suggest they will be perpetually bouncing around. The Republican party's platform is more geared towards older religious white people, not a heavily diverse Millennial generation who actually believes in things such as gay marriage, climate change, education funding, no constant tax breaks for the wealthy, amnesty and so on.

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

[Virginiá]

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

Read this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

This is why he suggested the GOP was coming into dominance - Because young people tend to keep their voting preferences after voting that way a few times as a young adult. There isn't really any reliable data to suggest people get more conservative as they age, but even if they did, there is plenty of data to suggest it doesn't actually make a difference in regards to how they vote.

But I would ask then, if people's views changed as they aged, for kids who grew up hating gay marriage, wouldn't they then approve of gay marriage when they get older, and vice versa?

edited- It's worth noting too that peoples attitudes and views on issues do change as they age (sometimes), but it doesn't always mean they would become conservative. A young adult who had money troubles in their 20s may become fiscally conservative later on, while a young adult who came from a fiscally conservative household may land a career job, well-paid, and become fiscally liberal. It can go either way.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

Read this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

This is why he suggested the GOP was coming into dominance - Because young people tend to keep their voting preferences after voting that way a few times as a young adult. There isn't really any reliable data to suggest people get more conservative as they age, but even if they did, there is plenty of data to suggest it doesn't actually make a difference in regards to how they vote.

But I would ask then, if people's views changed as they aged, for kids who grew up hating gay marriage, wouldn't they then approve of gay marriage when they get older, and vice versa?

edited- It's worth noting too that peoples attitudes and views on issues do change as they age (sometimes), but it doesn't always mean they would become conservative. A young adult who had money troubles in their 20s may become fiscally conservative later on, while a young adult who came from a fiscally conservative household may land a career job, well-paid, and become fiscally liberal. It can go either way.

As for gay marriage, if anything they become more against it one would think.  If you grow up against it, then you're most likely to keep that position.  Although, I myself have become more moderate even though my rhetoric is still there when speaking about candidates and campaigns.  Either way I'd say 90% of people vote for the same party as their parents and out of that 90%, at least 3/4 don't change.

[YaBoyNY]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher) than the Democratic ceiling.  Keep sticking to your false narratives, liberals!

Democratic Ceiling: 2008
Republican Ceiling (54-44 GOP):

have you ever put out a reasonable and/or not totally retarded post/map

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

i think i just had a stroke

[Figueira]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the thing here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

[Virginiá]

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

Then wouldn't I have to ignore/minimize all the other polls of how age groups voted? As I understand it, this poll obviously targeted a narrow age range but was as statistically significant as the others. I can't just willfully doubt all polls that go against my party. I suppose I could/should say, "polls suggest Romney won x, y, z...". At the very least though, I think we can conclude that in 2012, Obama did worse with 18-20 year olds than he did with the Millennial generation as a whole.

However, my conclusion was that Republicans winning a majority of that very narrow age range's vote in 2012 means little in terms of future Republican party strength because how one votes in one presidential election doesn't necessarily reflect how they vote in the future, especially when that vote was heavily influenced by both a recession and a new social program some of their parents hated. So whether or not this poll is entirely reliable or not doesn't actually affect my conclusion.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

Then wouldn't I have to ignore/minimize all the other polls of how age groups voted? As I understand it, this poll obviously targeted a narrow age range but was as statistically significant as the others. I can't just willfully doubt all polls that go against my party. I suppose I could/should say, "polls suggest Romney won x, y, z...". At the very least though, I think we can conclude that in 2012, Obama did worse with 18-20 year olds than he did with the Millennial generation as a whole.

However, my conclusion was that Republicans winning a majority of that very narrow age range's vote in 2012 means little in terms of future Republican party strength because how one votes in one presidential election doesn't necessarily reflect how they vote in the future, especially when that vote was heavily influenced by both a recession and a new social program some of their parents hated. So whether or not this poll is entirely reliable or not doesn't actually affect my conclusion.

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

[Virginiá]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

Do we have the turnout for 18-20 year olds?

[Virginiá]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

Do we have the turnout for 18-20 year olds?

Sort of. In addition to all other parts of the youth vote, this has 18-24 statistics:

http://civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fs_gender_13_final.pdf

And in case it interests you, here is a slew of information on Millennial issue positions / preferences / party identification and other data:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

[hopper]

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

The article was titled, "The Emerging Republican Advantage", and it quite literally said this in it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What he's basically saying here is that Republicans have an advantage in midterms and Democrats in presidential years, which has always been sort of the case since 1992 but now it is becoming overwhelming in presidential years due to the massive losses Republicans are experiencing from the exploding non-white population, non-married voters and Millennials. He also states part of the advantage the GOP has here is basically reliable voters - Grassroots from churches and such, which is interesting because a lot less people are attending church regularly and the secular portion of the population has been rising relatively steeply (compared to decades ago) among Millennials. This is a long way of saying their church-based outreach efforts will begin to be a lot less relevant into the future, like unions are becoming to Democrats.

Further, when doing statistical justifications, he mostly just uses the comparison of 2006 to 2014 to show this advantage. 2006 was a wave year for Democrats in the 6th year (6-year itch!) of the very unpopular Bush's tenure. Then he compares that to 2014, where Republicans had a wave when Obama was doing badly in polls as well (not as bad as Bush in 2006, though). This seems like a bad selection of election years to base a trend on. Both had the results they had because of specific reasons and the mood was based on the incumbent president. If we had compared, say, 2000 to 2006, we could just as easily conclude a "emerging Democratic advantage". Consider this: By similar metrics, he could have said Democrats were doomed with white voters because in 1984, they only won 36% of the white vote, and in 1988, just barely reaching 40%. However, their numbers ended up stabilizing at a higher percentage for most elections going into the future, instead of going further down like some postulate will happen now.

It's funny, because he has basically split with Ruy Teixeira on this issue since their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority". Judis is completely basing his opinion on the shift in working-class and "office-job" white voters, improperly using just a handful of issue/incumbent-based midterms, while Stanley Greenberg, and to a lesser extent, Teixeira, base future projections on the voting patterns and issue preferences of Millennials and non-white voters. There is good research that shows people mostly keep their voting habits that were formed early in life, with only major events changing them. This shows that once Millennials take up the bulk of the electorate - By 2020 - 2030, Democratic prospects will begin to change in the state legislatures and Congress, while a shift towards the GOP at the presidential level could occur, as it has in the past.

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era

So as you said here, we've already been in a Republican-dominated era since the 70s, at the presidential level. Their dominance shifted to the Congressional/state level by the 90s. Many agree that Clinton/Bush changed the voting habits of the younger generation towards Democrats and Obama was the result of this (in addition to the massive and continuing expansion of non-white voters). To say this shift is already changing (or rather, continuing) towards Republicans seems ill-informed. The only favorable trends for Republicans are in specific groups of white voters, who continue to decline in their share of the electorate nationally and in key states the GOP needs to win the White House and reliably hold the Senate. The only advantage they have now is due to their share of the white vote, which is much more evenly distributed across the country and thus best for district-based elections. Gubernatorial advantage bodes well for a party that represents a large amount of rural, conservative states whereas Democrats undoubtedly govern a much larger amount of people in a smaller number of states. Democrats will continue to have an advantage in presidential elections until Republicans find a way to get more of the non-white vote.

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

[hopper]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the thing here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

Your right according to "Asian American Decisions" Republicans won 34% of the Asian Vote in the 2014 midterms. Republicans did gain a little ground with the Asian Vote in 2014 but not as much as they thought. 

[hopper]

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

Read this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

This is why he suggested the GOP was coming into dominance - Because young people tend to keep their voting preferences after voting that way a few times as a young adult. There isn't really any reliable data to suggest people get more conservative as they age, but even if they did, there is plenty of data to suggest it doesn't actually make a difference in regards to how they vote.

But I would ask then, if people's views changed as they aged, for kids who grew up hating gay marriage, wouldn't they then approve of gay marriage when they get older, and vice versa?

edited- It's worth noting too that peoples attitudes and views on issues do change as they age (sometimes), but it doesn't always mean they would become conservative. A young adult who had money troubles in their 20s may become fiscally conservative later on, while a young adult who came from a fiscally conservative household may land a career job, well-paid, and become fiscally liberal. It can go either way.

As for gay marriage, if anything they become more against it one would think.  If you grow up against it, then you're most likely to keep that position.  Although, I myself have become more moderate even though my rhetoric is still there when speaking about candidates and campaigns.  Either way I'd say 90% of people vote for the same party as their parents and out of that 90%, at least 3/4 don't change.

Well I think people vote for a party based on wether whoever their President was in the High School Years and wether that President was successful or not in his respective presidency. Bush W. was not a successful president and look what happened.

As for their parental theory if that is true I do wonder if Party ID is genetic which is debatable. Most of my relatives whose party affiliation I am aware of are Democrats but my parents are not.

[hopper]

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

No, I stated that there were particular reasons they went for Romney over Obama. We won't have a constant recession or a new, massive social program unliked by these kids parents happening in the 1-2 years prior to every election. A lot of people turned on Democrats in 2010 and white voters in particular in 2012. Voters turning on parties en masse like that doesn't tend to happen frequently.

He's saying they will be swing voters in the near future, when there is nothing to suggest they will be perpetually bouncing around. The Republican party's platform is more geared towards older religious white people, not a heavily diverse Millennial generation who actually believes in things such as gay marriage, climate change, education funding, no constant tax breaks for the wealthy, amnesty and so on.

Further, he suggested we are entering a period of Republican dominance, which is highly unlikely. The Republican party, as I stated, doesn't share the same position on issues as the younger generation, is far more disliked than the Democratic party (32% favorable to 48% favorable for Democratic party), and is fighting a massively growing non-white voting population that goes heavy Democrat. A party doesn't gain influence into the future by going against most issues the newer generation(s) care about.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

[hopper]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher) than the Democratic ceiling.  Keep sticking to your false narratives, liberals!

Democratic Ceiling: 2008
Republican Ceiling (54-44 GOP):

have you ever put out a reasonable and/or not totally retarded post/map

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

More like "The Emerging Republican Advantage".

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Hopper brought up a very interesting debate about genetic party affiliation.  I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.  On my dad's side of the family, every single one of his siblings is a Republican and so are their kids and parents.  However, my grandfather was a Democrat until the 1960's.  He wore a Kennedy tie.  On my mom's side it was the opposite until the 2000's.  Now they're Republicans too.  My mom was in high school during Reagan's first term and registered as a Republican though.  I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and Jim Quinn.  Now she's married to a Democrat whose family is all Democrats.  His cousin is a Democrat judge in Pittsburgh and married them.  One variable is the degree to which a family is involved in politics.  For example, the Kennedys who I don't see ever changing and the same with the Bushes.  The Republican party runs deep in my blood and has played an enormous role in my formation as an American and a man.  Another thing I've come to realize though is that 60-70% of what gets passed would be similar regardless of which party was in the White House. Religion plays a big role in families too which can be a factor in their political affiliation.  I'm going to start a thread about this.

[Virginiá]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

[This account no longer in use.]

I agree completely.

[Mike Thick]

I agree completely.

Probably the most insightful post I've seen on the forum so far.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

Not if their turnout is low enough.