Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some interesting data I found- in the 2012 election, the majority of the young voters(18, 19, and 20 year olds) voted for Romney over Obama. Here's just a few quotes and sources for proof:
If we zero in even further on the youngest of the millennials in these polls — those who turned 18 during Obama’s first term — the potential challenges for Democrats become even clearer. Among self-reported voters who were 18 years old in 2012, Mitt Romney, not Obama, won the majority: 57 percent. Romney also won 59 percent among 19-year-olds, and 54 percent among 20-year-olds.
And Obama actually lost the youth vote among 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds to Mitt Romney, everyone’s least favorite grandparent. According to George Washington University political scientist John Sides, Romney took 57 percent of 18-year-olds, 59 percent of 19-year-olds, and 54 percent of 20-year-olds. It’s not clear how those kids will vote (or if they’ll vote) in 2016, but there’s no reason to buy into the idea that the youth vote is locked up by the Democrats.
Those voters who are coming of age during Obama's term are the ones Democrats should be afraid of. As data shows, they are swinging more to the right, especially since they have seen so far what Democrats have done and were too young to know or really care about the negatives over Bush. Those who were first time voters in 2008 were coming of age during the Bush era and saw Obama is something "different" and somebody who would bring "Hope and Change" to the country. They were under his spell back then. More and more millennials are moving back in with their parents after college and aren't able to find "real" jobs. That is going to be another important factor in 2016- the lack of jobs after college. Also people become more conservative as they grow older and have to pay taxes.
I wonder where the article got the individual age breakdown from because all I am finding is the 18-29 group numbers which shows Obama getting 60 percent of that group, while Romney only got 37. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_12.html
Would be interesting to see exactly where the Washington Post got its data from. Looks like John needs to start showing his work if he wishes to get credit for his answers.
Just like the kids fought against big government in the 60's they will start waking up and fight against big government again.
People are constantly fighting against big government. Every president has had the anti-large-government protest against them except Clinton. And Clinton might have had it too if Hillary would have made any progress with her health plan. But that never happened. So between Roosevelt and Obama, only one president was against big government. Bush jr was the worst. Obama isn't far behind. We just keep electing big-government officials.
Oh, no! That was the Tea Party! That wasn't us! Great, go ahead and admit you have no control over your own party. Nice. Our Congrss is full of angry, reckless people who see the American public's welfare as some kind of @#$@%@#$ bargaining chip with a President they hate.
Just like the kids fought against big government in the 60's they will start waking up and fight against big government again.
Was it really against Big Government?
Yes- the military is government so I suppose the draft and Vietnam protests could be about big govt but also against big defense/business. Lets not forget that George Romney ended up agreeing with many of the thoughts of the anti-war protestors.
The environmental protests, helped get the government going towards enacting tougher anti-pollution laws. Other social welfare efforts were in conjunction with federal and state goverments.
Oftentimes the official reactions to the protests included the use of the National Guard, but to say the fight was against big government is an overreach. In fact it was the use the state/ feds that got many things done that needed to be addressed.
Would be interesting to see exactly where the Washington Post got its data from. Looks like John needs to start showing his work if he wishes to get credit for his answers.
What John Sides is saying, without siting a source, is that more 18 year olds (first time voters) voted for Romney, then for Obama. He then says that Obama won 70% of the votes of 21 year olds. That's hardly an indication that millennials are going to start voting Republican en-mass. He makes a pretty big logical leap to go from his original assertion that first time voters are less likely to vote for the party in power to conclude that these are new Republicans. Yes, the most socially liberal generation ever; the one disillusioned with current power structures; straddled with debt; but also the most entrepreneural is going to turn to the party who's platform and policies are counter to almost everything they believe. Millennials might not vote for Democrats (see the mid-term turnouts), but they sure as heck aren't going to vote for Republicans.
Please source them because I would like to see that data, everything I have found only breaks it down to 18-29 and not by individual age like the author is saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
