- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Millenial Voters in 2016
Posted on 7/20/14 at 12:36 am
Posted on 7/20/14 at 12:36 am
LINK
Interesting poll and results. Seems social issues still drive millenials.
Millennials Plan to Vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016; Prefer Rand Paul Among Republican Candidates
"Millennials like Hillary Clinton, according to the latest Reason-Rupe poll of millennials. Among likely millennial voters, 53 percent plan to vote for her if she runs for president in 2016.[1] Even though they see themselves as closer to Republican Gov. Chris Christie on economics, they perceive to be closer to Clinton on social issues. Ultimately they are planning to vote for Clinton. There is also reason to believe that social issues are largely driving the wedge between young people and Republicans"
Interesting poll and results. Seems social issues still drive millenials.
Millennials Plan to Vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016; Prefer Rand Paul Among Republican Candidates
"Millennials like Hillary Clinton, according to the latest Reason-Rupe poll of millennials. Among likely millennial voters, 53 percent plan to vote for her if she runs for president in 2016.[1] Even though they see themselves as closer to Republican Gov. Chris Christie on economics, they perceive to be closer to Clinton on social issues. Ultimately they are planning to vote for Clinton. There is also reason to believe that social issues are largely driving the wedge between young people and Republicans"
4
Posted on 7/20/14 at 12:42 am to wfeliciana
Pretty good related article Drudge has on his site. LINK
I liked this part:
I liked this part:
quote:
Less surprisingly, next-generation liberals tilt hugely left on social issues, and this, they say, is the reason they vote Democrat, in many cases against their stated economic beliefs. A commenter on a New York Times piece on the Pew survey ticked off a list of economic beliefs that placed him to the right of center, then concluded, “The Democrats hold onto us only because of the Republic[an] obsession with religion, sexual repression and environmental denial.”
Another way to spin that idea is that the Democrats hold onto young voters because of the media’s successful bid to paint Republicans as obsessed with these things. (Or was 2001-2009 America a Puritan theocracy?)
Posted on 7/20/14 at 12:52 am to constant cough
Interestingly the poll I referenced didn't lay any descriptors like liberal or conservative on them--just looked at them as an age group.
But as to your point, I don't think they need the media to remind them, they just need to listen to Rs in office, Rs running for office, or read state and national R platforms. Demographics and failure to recognize changing attitudes hurt the Rs.
But as to your point, I don't think they need the media to remind them, they just need to listen to Rs in office, Rs running for office, or read state and national R platforms. Demographics and failure to recognize changing attitudes hurt the Rs.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 12:56 am to wfeliciana
53% isn't all that high. Kerry did better than that, and so did Obama (by far). The millennial economic situation is just pitiful right now. A record number are underemployed and living with parents. Republicans could potentially be successful in tying this to democratic policies.
Not exactly sure why you are painting this as a good thing for dems, either. 53% would be the lowest in years for dems.
Not exactly sure why you are painting this as a good thing for dems, either. 53% would be the lowest in years for dems.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:10 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Not exactly sure why you are painting this as a good thing for dems, either. 53% would be the lowest in years for dems.
Actually that wasn't my intent, I thought it was interesting and pointed out that even with this crappy economy, social issues are the dividing line.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:13 am to wfeliciana
The sad thing is that republicans let social issues drive their platform.
Republicans in Washington are not very far apart from democrats on fiscal issues. You can lie to yourself and say they are different. But they're not
Republicans in Washington are not very far apart from democrats on fiscal issues. You can lie to yourself and say they are different. But they're not
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:26 am to wfeliciana
quote:That's because of the effectiveness of campaigning. Obama's team and current dem operatives are doing a really excellent job of getting the social message out, while republicans aren't even trying to show young folks how democratic economic policies might be hurting them.
Actually that wasn't my intent, I thought it was interesting and pointed out that even with this crappy economy, social issues are the dividing line.
If republicans can get the economic message to the young folks (who are less fiscally liberal than older democrats), then things will change.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:36 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If republicans can get the economic message to the young folks (who are less fiscally liberal than older democrats), then things will change.
May be. I just wonder when that will happen. Right now the Rs have an internal civil war going on. It'll be interesting to see who is still standing when that ends. Honestly, I think the middle class of America is just fed up with both parties. They just dislike the Ds less.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:40 am to wfeliciana
I don't think you'll disagree with me when I say that Rand Paul would bring in a ton of under-29 Obama voters.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:46 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Oh I think he would bring in a ton of 35 and under male Obama voters. Still think Rand doesn't and won't do well with women. Then again I don't think we'll find out in 2016 since he won't win the nomination.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:47 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 1:22 am
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:48 am to Negative Nomad
Abortion is still a hot topic. No need to abandon that. Drugs should definitely be an area of reform for republicans.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:53 am to Negative Nomad
quote:
And stop putting old arse candidates. They come across as the creepy uncle no kne wants to talk to. It ain't rocket science.
Some ancient history for you. That's one of the reasons Bill Clinton won. He was young, of a different generation, first president that wasn't of the WWII generation. And he talked about new technology, global communications, global economy, protecting the environment. Up until his win you saw the winning candidates in suits celebrating-he wore his jeans. It was a generational change.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:54 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 1:22 am
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:57 am to wfeliciana
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 1:22 am
Posted on 7/20/14 at 1:59 am to Negative Nomad
quote:
Time to move on
I think that is what can hurt any political party-the inability to read the political landscape or the refusal to admit that issues that once matters to many only now matter to a few.
Posted on 7/20/14 at 2:08 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 7/20/14 at 2:31 am to efrad
Peace and prosperity. That is what wins elections. A good economy and stability abroad. You learn that in any poli sci 101 class.
Bush won in 88 because people attributed the boom to Reagan's policies. Clinton won on the "it's the economy stupid". Obama won twice because of Bush's association with the collapse of 2008.
Remember, Americans only have two choices in the long run. If the economy is terrible, someone will still support the party that he sees as an answer to economic problems, even if that party holds views on social issues that he doesn't agree with.
If unemployment was at 11% in 2012, are you really trying to claim that the democrats would have still been successful because some people think the republican party is too religious? Give me a break.
In almost every single election, the outcome has depended on the economy and war. Peace and Prosperity. People who won't vote for a party based on petty issues such as religion and abortion are idiots who represent about 1% of the population, and are largely party hacks themselves.
People who are turned off by the republican message of biblical governance or the democratic message of unions are probably already hard leftwing or rightwing anyway.
The great paradox is that as democratic policies make people poorer, it actually strengthens the democratic party. Americans are getting poorer as the years go on. That's a big driver of current democratic dominance.
Bush won in 88 because people attributed the boom to Reagan's policies. Clinton won on the "it's the economy stupid". Obama won twice because of Bush's association with the collapse of 2008.
Remember, Americans only have two choices in the long run. If the economy is terrible, someone will still support the party that he sees as an answer to economic problems, even if that party holds views on social issues that he doesn't agree with.
If unemployment was at 11% in 2012, are you really trying to claim that the democrats would have still been successful because some people think the republican party is too religious? Give me a break.
In almost every single election, the outcome has depended on the economy and war. Peace and Prosperity. People who won't vote for a party based on petty issues such as religion and abortion are idiots who represent about 1% of the population, and are largely party hacks themselves.
People who are turned off by the republican message of biblical governance or the democratic message of unions are probably already hard leftwing or rightwing anyway.
The great paradox is that as democratic policies make people poorer, it actually strengthens the democratic party. Americans are getting poorer as the years go on. That's a big driver of current democratic dominance.
This post was edited on 7/20/14 at 2:36 am
Posted on 7/20/14 at 2:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/21 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 7/20/14 at 5:17 am to tiger1014
quote:Most libertarian-leaners are of the Austrian or Chicago schools of economics, but outside of that yes, certainly everyone else is a thick and thin Keynesian.
Republicans in Washington are not very far apart from democrats on fiscal issues.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News