« Sorry I Missed It | Main | Reich on the Race »

Emerging Democratic Majority

29 Apr 2008 09:50 am

partyID_youth.png

These are the latest youth cohort party ID numbers from Pew. As you can see here, the future looks a bit bleak for the GOP. The chart illustrates the fact that, contrary to myth, the Democratic edge with young people has usually been pretty small but now it's huge. In a micro-sense, of course, anyone whose experience consists mostly of eight years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton followed by Bush acceding to the White House under dubious circumstances and then leading us into inept governance, failed wars, and a shaky economy is bound to favor the Democrats.

But in a macro sense, you're looking at the undertow of the past thirty years of conservative identity politics. The right has had great electoral success mobilizing people against the kind of social transformation we've been experiencing for the past several decades (more and more assertive racial and ethnic minorities, secularists, cosmopolitan types, etc.) but they haven't actually halted any of these transformations and the lines of cleavage that have given the GOP the bigger half of the cookie in most elections since 1968 leave them with the smaller half among the youngest cohort.

Share This

Comments (36)

Mr. Yglesias, as usual, ignores the lessons of history. People in that age group don't vote. The majority of voters in this country are un-young, un-poor, and un-black, as the late columnist Stewert Alsop once famously said.

I think it's a bit delusional to expect that we will obtain some kind of consensus liberal governance down the road. More likely the definition of the opposition party will shift (in a more liberal direction, thankfully) enough to snag sufficient people on the margin to ensure the roughly 50%/50% divide we've enjoyed for the last two hundred years of electoral politics.

SLC - That's of registered voters, not all 18-29 yr olds. Your Assignment desk: similar chart of actual voting for that age group.

The majority of voters in this country are un-young, un-poor, and un-black, as the late columnist Stewert Alsop once famously said.

The conventional wisdom that black people and young people don't vote has always been overstated, and both have seen recent increases in voter registration, despite the Republican party's great efforts to keep black people from voting.

Here you go, no trend, but actual voters:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/292-4.gif

from:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=292

And here's a trend of actual voters 02 to 06, by party, but not % of pop:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/93/election-06-big-changes-in-some-key-groups

-j

Matt, I think it's important to qualify your conclusions, which are basically correct, with the acknowledgment that the current generation of 18-29 year-olds is perhaps the least "loyal to party" cohort in modern US history. Secondly, latinos aged 18-29 will be the determinant segment of this cohort in terms of its' left-right political balance going into the future. That segment of voters cannot be considered a "base" constituency, and will have to be courted.

Most 18-29 year olds will eventually be 30-45.

The real question is what will happen to politics when the Republican party completes its collapse. Given trends in voting habits along with demographic changes, the Republicans had zero chance of staying in power in the long run even if the Bush Administration had been competent.

Image what politics will be like when the Democratic Primary is the only relevant election.

SLC says: "Mr. Yglesias, as usual, ignores the lessons of history. People in that age group don't vote."

SLC, this year is going to be different. That's the lesson of the 2008 primaries.

Another lesson: Young people traditionally have a sense of moral outrage and will take to the streets in great numbers to write grievous wrongs.

This year, they have the ballot box with which to wage their righteous protest, and we can be thankful for that. We're in a dreadful state as a nation and we need some fresh, young thinking to get us out of it.

SLC says: "Mr. Yglesias, as usual, ignores the lessons of history. People in that age group don't vote."

SLC, this year is going to be different. That's the lesson of the 2008 primaries.

Another lesson: Young people traditionally have a sense of moral outrage and will take to the streets in great numbers to write grievous wrongs.

This year, they have the ballot box with which to wage their righteous protest, and we can be thankful for that. We're in a dreadful state as a nation and we need some fresh, young thinking to get us out of it.

SLC says: "Mr. Yglesias, as usual, ignores the lessons of history. People in that age group don't vote."

SLC, this year is going to be different. That's the lesson of the 2008 primaries.

Another lesson: Young people traditionally have a sense of moral outrage and will take to the streets in great numbers to write grievous wrongs.

This year, they have the ballot box with which to wage their righteous protest, and we can be thankful for that. We're in a dreadful state as a nation and we need some fresh, young thinking to get us out of it.

Though it has to be noted that this trend makes it especially sad that people like me will bolt the party if Hillary steals the nomination. After her truly incorrigible remarks about obliterating the men, women, and children of Iran I cannot in good conscience stop short of doing anything I can to stop that madwoman even if it means voting McCain.

You should also note the gender gap. Women are overwhelmingly trending Democratic. The Republican theme of being the daddy party has reached its logical conclusion of driving America' moms into the Democratic party.

Though it has to be noted that this trend makes it especially sad that people like me will bolt the party if Hillary steals the nomination. After her truly incorrigible remarks about obliterating the men, women, and children of Iran I cannot in good conscience stop short of doing anything I can to stop that madwoman even if it means voting McCain.

Posted by reader | April 29, 2008 10:55 AM
*************************

I've come to the opposite conclusion, that much as I despise Hillary I'd have to vote for her over McCain (who I actually like) or end up in Hell chasing a stupid flag forever. McCain really is crazy enough to start a war. Hillary's just pretending to be that crazy to give voters confidence in her leadership.

Re james lawrence

I have heard that story before and it ain't happened yet. Young people were a lot more stirred up in 1968 over the Vietnam War where the males amongst them were eligible for the draft. Remember who won that election? I respectively suggest that Mr. lawrence not bet the ranch that it's going to happen in 2008.

The 26th amendment wasn't ratified until 1971. Maybe the extra votes wouldn't have tilted it one way or another, but almost a third of those 18-29 year olds were unable to vote in 1968.

reader, let me try to persuade you that you are making a mistake. I completely understand your anger but this is not about emotions, it's about rational decision making. For the last eight years, the Republican Party and its allies in the corporate and media worlds have been working to subvert democracy and end free elections in the US. They almost succeeded in turning the federal criminal justice system into a tool for preventing free elections and they have not given up on that effort. Their judicial appointees to the Supreme Court just yesterday affirmed practices designed to disenfranchise qualified voters. And we have no idea just how much surveillance of political adversaries is going on and to what use it's being put - all we know is that it is happening.

If McCain is elected these practices will continue and it may well become impossible to elect a non-Republican to the presidency by 2012. If any Democrat is elected in 2008 the practices will stop - not because the Democrat in question is a good person but because the self-interest of any Democrat lies in reversing them.

This issue is greater than Iraq and Iran. And in any case McCain will be no better and probably worse than Clinton on Iraq and Iran. If you want to live in a country that is not a self-perpetuating one-party military-industrial rotating dictatorship, you should swallow hard and vote for the Democrat, regardless of who is nominated. The argument that McCain couldn't be worse is the kind of argument that history has disproved over and over again. Experience teaches that the bad is always better than the truly appalling.

reader, let me try to persuade you that you are making a mistake. I completely understand your anger but this is not about emotions, it's about rational decision making. For the last eight years, the Republican Party and its allies in the corporate and media worlds have been working to subvert democracy and end free elections in the US. They almost succeeded in turning the federal criminal justice system into a tool for preventing free elections and they have not given up on that effort. Their judicial appointees to the Supreme Court just yesterday affirmed practices designed to disenfranchise qualified voters. And we have no idea just how much surveillance of political adversaries is going on and to what use it's being put - all we know is that it is happening.

If McCain is elected these practices will continue and it may well become impossible to elect a non-Republican to the presidency by 2012. If any Democrat is elected in 2008 the practices will stop - not because the Democrat in question is a good person but because the self-interest of any Democrat lies in reversing them.

This issue is greater than Iraq and Iran. And in any case McCain will be no better and probably worse than Clinton on Iraq and Iran. If you want to live in a country that is not a self-perpetuating one-party military-industrial rotating dictatorship, you should swallow hard and vote for the Democrat, regardless of who is nominated. The argument that McCain couldn't be worse is the kind of argument that history has disproved over and over again. Experience teaches that the bad is always better than the truly appalling.

These numbers beautifully indicate why the GOP wants Clinton and not Obama. It's not only about the 2008 election, which most Republicans probably know they are going to lose. The 2008 election, while a huge battle, is not the war - and especially if Clinton wins.

This is about long-term voter identification. President Obama could lead a liberal movement that would lock in younger voters for a generation the same way Reagan did for the GOP. President Hillary meanwhile, would never have that generational pull. After two years it would seem like Democrats and Republicans were more or less the same, and that huge ideological leaning of the under 30 crowd would go back to earth.

If Obama reaches the White House, the GOP probably becomes the minority party for 20 years and will be on the defensive ideologically speaking as one generation fades out and another far more diverse generation arises to take its place. It's no accident the GOP is suddenly thrilled with Hillary - she their only hope.

Thanks SLC, well, we'll see. I'm betting more than the ranch...it's out country that's on the table...let's hope the "kids" come through.

I was a Dem in college too... then I got a job and had to start paying taxes. Things change quickly after school, including allegiances to political parties!

I was a Dem in college too... then I got a job and had to start paying taxes. Things change quickly after school, including allegiances to political parties!

"The real question is what will happen to politics when the Republican party completes its collapse. Given trends in voting habits along with demographic changes, the Republicans had zero chance of staying in power in the long run even if the Bush Administration had been competent.

Superdestroyer,

I wouldn't write the epitaph of the GOP too soon. Political parties change over time in response to new political realities, and despite your fears, demography is not destiny. The Democratic Party does not have a guaranteed lock over younger voters and non-white voters in the long run, amymore than the Republican Party has a guaranteed lock on older voters and white voters.

100 years ago, African-American voters voted overwhelming for the Republicans, and Southern whites were overwhelmingly Democratic voters. Today, the voting patters are reversed. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, while former Dixiecrats are steadfast Republicans. This change occurred without either party disappearing.

Even if the GOP were to collapse like the Federalist party did in the 1810s, or like the Whig party did in the early 1850s, the need for a political counterweight to the Democratic Party won't disappear. Eventually, many of the elements of the old GOP will emerge in a new political party. After all, many of The former Federalists who had joined the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison in the 1810s later formed the Whig Party in the 1820s, and many of the former Whigs (such as Lincoln) went on to form the GOP during the mid-1850s.

eltoro,

In several states today, there is no effective Republican party. Has a third party started up to take its place? No, the state like Mass. just adjusted to being a one party state. Why shouldn't the U.S. become like Mass., Maryland, California, Illinois, etc. Given the huge amount of power the federal government has, no group can afford to be outside of power. In the 1800's when the government consumed only 3% of GDP, parties could exist while out of power. Now with the government at all levels consuming 40% GDP and the CFR having 100,000's of pages, no group can be out of power. The existing Republican supporters like the Chamber of Commerce or big business will just move into the Democratic power structure.

Thus, the real question is what will the country be like when the President is elected on Big Tuesday in February instead of being elected in November?

was a Dem in college too... then I got a job and had to start paying taxes. Things change quickly after school, including allegiances to political parties!

Given that Matt posted party identification trends amongst 18-29 year olds, why is your anecdote relevant?

Anyone know who has data on the historical longitudinal party loyalty shift of voters as they age? Like, 18-29 numbers from 1970, 30-39 numbers from 1980, 40-49 numbers from 1990? That seems a big caveat, since I know I've seen data that shows younger voters have trended more liberal for some time...

And superdestroyer, Cali is most definitely not a one party state. Yeah, a Bush-McCainiac couldn't get state-wide office, but look at the blue/red divide by county or precinct. Sea of red except with blue bleeding in from the ocean onto the coastline.

Superdestroyer,

What is certain though is that today's GOP will cease to exist. It will cease to be the party of Dubya & Cheney, just as it ceased to be the party of Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Calvin Coolidge, the party of Eisenhower, and the party of Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller (although some of those elements can still be found in today's Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan/Dubya/McCain GOP.)

The future GOP will be the party of Jack Kemp, Colin Powell, Ron Paul, Dick Lugar, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Mike Bloomberg, as it moves away from its current neoconservative foreign policy and its current Christianist domestic agenda. There still will be a place for religious conservatives, but they will be in the mold of Mike Huckabee, and not in the mold of Alan Keyes.

Superdestroyer,

Despite the damage inflicted by George Ryan and his licenses-for-bribes scandal, the GOP has not ceased to exist in Illinois. Yes, the Democrats are in the majority in both houses of the General Assembly (our state legislature), but it is not an overwhelming majority. Yes, the Democrats occupy all our statewide offices, and both of our Senators are Democrats. Yes, in Cook County (where Chicago is located)the Democrats dominate county government, and the GOP is almost non-existent in Chicago. However, there is still a substantial GOP contingent in Illinois's delegation to the US House of Represenatives. There is still substantial support for the GOP on the muncipal/township/county level throughout the state, outside of Cook County. Even in Cook County, many suburban municipal and township governments are still GOP-dominated.

The GOP is thus down, but not out. Illinois Democrats are prone to factionalism and rivalries, and Democratic poltical leaders don't see eye to eye with each other. In particular, Governor Rod Blagojevich and Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan are bitter political enemies, despite their common background as white Chicago Machine Democrats. Moreover, Mayor Richard M Daley doesn't have very close relations with the Governor or the Speaker, and supports Senators Durbin and Obama only because he has to. (One gets the impression he would be happiest dealing with a Republican Governor in the mold of George Ryan, and a Republican US Senator in the mold of Charles Percy or Everett Dirksen.) In addition, Governor Blago is enduring corruption scandals of his own, and his links to people like Tony Rezko are far deeper than Obama's are. Blago will be vulnerable to a challenge from within his own party and from the GOP when he comes up for re-election in 2010.

Therefore, the Illinois GOP is not doomed to collapse. The factionalism, rivalries, and corruption scandals associated with the Illinois Dems will present the GOP with opportunities to reclaim more political power in the future, so long as it grooms the right candidates. As long as the Illinois GOP stays away from machine politicians like George Ryan and wingnuts like Alan Keyes, its future chances will be favorable.

Richardson's right-- we'd better not be too smug about these numbers until the primary's over, because a disillusioned and insulted youth cohort may not stay in the Dem column for long. My guess is that if HRC gets the nomination, they'll mostly call themselves 'independents,' vote as unreliably as CW would indicate for a few cycles, and be open to a retooled GOP message in eight or twelve years. After all, it'll be clear that the Democratic Party was never that interested in what they had to say. And it's basically a demographic impossibility for the 'Reagan Democrat' cohort to not have included a sizable share of the 1968 youth that was pretty much crapped on by the Dem establishment.

And it may not matter whether reader is willing to vote for HRC or not, depending n the state s/he is from-- I won't vote for her either should she get the nomination (nor will I vote for McCain), but I don't live in a swing state, so it's not particularly important except to me. If I lived in Missouri or Ohio, I'd suck it up no matter how much it pained me, but a vote of no real electoral significance is one I can keep.

In several states today, there is no effective Republican party. Has a third party started up to take its place? No, the state like Mass. just adjusted to being a one party state. Why shouldn't the U.S. become like Mass., Maryland, California, Illinois, etc.

The big reason why the GOP suffers in such states is because of the spectre of the national party. These states are significantly to the left of the national party but the regional parties will not or cannot distance itself sufficiently from the national GOP.

But if the nation moved sufficiently to the left, the national GOP would either move left to remain relevant or be suplanted by some other opposition party. The U.S. will not become a Japan-style one party state.

The differences between the Iraq War in 2008 vs. the Vietnam War in 1972, the politics of boomer hippies vs. modern young people, youth turnout in 1972 vs. in 2008, etc. just make any anecdotal evidence dismissing this data just another bit of "Boomer Exceptionalism" in which everything the Boomers went through somehow becomes the norm, when in fact it was rather dependent on the particulars of a certain time. The Boomers are not the model for any subsequent generation.

A Moderate:
I wasn't anything in school, got a job and payed taxes and yet I am a Democrat. So not everyone is like you. I know plenty of people who are disgusted at what the Boy King has done. And disgusted that the GOP lets the Boy King role right over them.

"I have heard that story before and it ain't happened yet. Young people were a lot more stirred up in 1968 over the Vietnam War where the males amongst them were eligible for the draft. Remember who won that election? I respectively suggest that Mr. lawrence not bet the ranch that it's going to happen in 2008."

SLC,

Actually the "anti-war" candidate won. Nixon explicitly campaigned on a promise that he had a secret plan to end the war that LBJ and JFK has gotten us into, and Hubert Humphrey, who was LBJ's VP, didn't campaign against continuing the US involvement in the Vietnam war for most of the general election. Humphrey finally came out against the war toward the end of the GE, but by then it was too late. Moreover, George Wallace and his running mate Curtis LeMay were determined not only to continue the war, but to win it.

So the closest thing to an anti-war candidate in the 1968 general election was Richard Nixon, of all people. Eugene McCarthy was unable to secure the Democratic nomination, RFK was assasinated, and Humphrey's loyalty to/fear of LBJ prevented him from embracing the anti-war cause.
As a result, there was no one for the anti-war youth vote to rally behind in the 1968 general election. Considering how close the race between Nixon and Humphrey turned out to be (in terms of the popular vote), the youth vote would have made a difference had Humphrey been more strongly anti-war, or had RFK been the nominee.

"The big reason why the GOP suffers in such states is because of the spectre of the national party. These states are significantly to the left of the national party but the regional parties will not or cannot distance itself sufficiently from the national GOP."


GOP politicians in the big blue states like California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts need to heed the lessons provided by Governor George Pataki in New York, by Governor Arnuld in California, by Governor Jim Edgar in Illinois, and even Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. The GOP can be competitive in these states, so long as the party's candidates appeal to the moderate-on-social-issues inclinations of the GOP electorate in those states, and build bridges with independent voters and even some Democrats.

After all, even in these blue states the GOP candidate under normal circumstances can claim at least 45% of the vote in a statewide election. (Dubya was able to get 45% of the vote in Illinois in the 2004 GE, while Keyes was only able to get 30%).The consistent inability in recent years of the GOP in states like Illinois to win statewide offices is not due to some permanent political realignment in favor of the Democrats. Instead, it is an indictment of the poor leadership exercised by the GOP's leaders in those states.

The trends in the mid- and late-1960s were similar.

It's like the old joke about Brazil.

The Democrats are the party of the future, and always will be.


Comments closed May 13, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.