How Will the MILLENNIALS Vote in 2014 Midterm Election...
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Harvard University poll shows slightly more than half MILLENNIALS favor republicans in 2014.
Get the full report BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Purveyor of Truth
Harvard University poll shows slightly more than half MILLENNIALS favor republicans in 2014.
LIKELY MILLENNIAL VOTERS UP-FOR-GRABS IN UPCOMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS, HARVARD YOUTH POLL FINDS
In contrast to 2010, Millennials reporting they will “definitely” vote in November
prefer Republican-led Congress by slim four-point margin
Cambridge, MA – A new national poll of America’s 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds slightly more than half (51%) of young Americans who say they will “definitely be voting” in November prefer a Republican-run Congress with 47 percent favoring Democrat control – a significant departure from IOP polling findings before the last midterm elections (Sept. 2010 – 55%: prefer Democrat control; 43%: prefer Republican control). The cohort – 26% of whom report they will “definitely” vote in the midterms – appear up-for-grabs to both political parties and could be a critical swing vote in many races in November.
The IOP’s newest poll results – its 26th major release since 2000 – also show race and ethnicity continue to be a strong predictor of political attitudes.
“The IOP’s fall polling shows that young Americans care deeply about their country and are politically up-for-grabs,” said Harvard Institute of Politics Director Maggie Williams. “Millennials could be a critical swing vote. Candidates for office: ignore millennial voters at your peril."
"While Democrats have lost ground among members of America's largest generation, millennial views of Republicans in Congress are even less positive," said Harvard Institute of Politics Polling Director John Della Volpe. "Both parties should re-introduce themselves to young voters, empower them and seek their participation in the upcoming 2016 campaign and beyond."
SKIP
In Contrast to Four Years Ago, Slightly More Than Half of “Likely” Young Voters Prefer a Republican-controlled Congress.
President Obama’s Job Approval Rating Decreases, Nears Low-Water mark.
Deep Political Divisions Harden Along Racial Lines.
Millennial Interest in Midterm Voting Similar to 2010 Levels; Conservatives Seem More Enthusiastic.
Hispanic Support for President Obama is Weakening.
Concerns Over Terrorism Exist, as Support is Seen for Expanded U.S. Campaign Against ISIS.
Social Networking Preferences Vary by Race and Ethnicity.
Get the full report BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Les... will this matter in the national picture? i doubt it... The GOP has shown an uncanny ability to alienate the voter groups that are increasing in our country and in a national election, that will be very problematic for them.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I've seen darn little from the bloggers on how they believe they should address this impending reality.
Yes the GOP will still win elections, primarily based on gerrymandering, but time is against them.
Their rhetoric, not necessarily their message, is problematic and they do not seem to care. just the other day I was reading a site and they were openly using the term ni**er, not caring if it alienated people.
How is that a strategy to win people to your arguments?
Let's see... I think your an ahole, but please vote for me?
Really?
Excellent points and questions Dave. The following line in the 4th paragraph really says it for me;
ReplyDelete"Both parties should re-introduce themselves to young voters, empower them and seek their participation in the upcoming 2016 campaign and beyond."
Without a doubt the republican party has a huge image problem and one of their own making. Most republicans I know and have known are decent people with family and want the same things in life as democrats and independents. So, IMO, if the party is to survive and have a chance at all of infusing the good ideas many of them have they have an immediate PR task to get to work on.
Democrats to a lesser degree need to demonstrate for the average person on the street how their agenda in fiscal management in fact won't "break the bank." A perception many have of democrats.
I add that on many social and civil rights issues the republicans have dug themselves a huge hole.
As an a acknowledged Objectivist I expect many to hammer away at me. But I guess my interpretation of long term rational self interest is different than most.
RN said: "Without a doubt the republican party has a huge image problem and one of their own making. "
ReplyDeleteExactly. Just as the image problem (or not) of the Democrats is of their own making, entirely.
Actually, many voters are confused and blaming Democrats for Republican obstruction. Obviously Republican obstruction is not of the Democrat's making.
DeleteAlso, "Gerrymandering" can only get you so far....and absolutely nowhere at all in Senate elections, the governor elections, and the Presidential election. As for House elections, the trend toward concentration of Democrats in tiny urban areas and Republicans in spread-out rural areas can make it a challenge to divine borders to balance these districts... and require creative districting (cough, gerrymandering. cough) to get around it so Dems aren't packed, as the natural tendency would be, so tightly, into a few districts. And at the end of the day, it's all one person one vote, regardless of gerrymandering. and when voters change parties (or vote split tickets), the best gerrymandering plan in the world won't keep work. And then what you get down to is that the country is really split close to 50-50%.
ReplyDeleteThis recent <a href = "http://www.iop.harvard.edu/october-29-2014-fall-2014-survey?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=hero&utm_campaign=Fall2014Survey'>Harvard study</A> shows how even the split us. Sure, Republicans are slightly ahead in it now, but before Dems were. That it slips back and forth like this around the 50% mark is part of my point.
------------------------
RN said: "Democrats to a lesser degree need to demonstrate for the average person on the street how their agenda in fiscal management in fact won't "break the bank.""
The Dems much more being in favor of handouts to big banks is a related problem....
There's no confusion.. the voters are blaming Dems for what they do and Republicans for what they do. And the voters, making decisions only they are qualified to do, find both groups lacking. It would be foolish of me to call them confused because their personal informed decisions differ from mine.
ReplyDeleteThere is confusion. The voters are blaming Dems for what they do and the Dems for what the Republicans do. This is true, despite meaningless phrases like "voters, making decisions only they are qualified to do". If they were paying attention they would find one group lacking: The Republicans. It would be foolish to not to refer to them as confused when their personal uninformed conclusions don't comport with reality.
DeleteMeanwhile the stock market has recovered and continues to do well.
ReplyDeleteBTW, The market has historically performed better under democratic leadership. Google it. I did and it is true.
I did find this source for your claim, RN,and it seems pretty good. But I expected that,
ReplyDeleteFor fans of "class warfare" rhetoric, it does look clear, though, which party is the party of Wall Street, of "plutocrats"
I consider myself a fan of truth telling rhetoric... AKA "class warfare" rhetoric, YES. As for the bank bailout, what should have done was to nationalize them and bailout the homeowners. Is that the course of action the Republicans supported? Or were they for allowing the banks to fail, bringing about a depression? In any case, it was the former Republican president who signed that legislation.
ReplyDeleteAs for the course of action we did take, "former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky [refers to it as], the ultimate bait-and-switch". According to Matt Taibbi...
On paper, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was simple: Treasury would buy $700 billion of troubled mortgages from the banks and then modify them to help struggling homeowners. Section 109 of the act, in fact, specifically empowered the Treasury secretary to "facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures". With that promise on the table, wary Democrats finally approved the bailout on October 3rd, 2008. "That provision", says Barofsky, "is what got the bill passed".
But within days of passage, the Fed and the Treasury unilaterally decided to abandon the planned purchase of toxic assets in favor of direct injections of billions in cash into companies like Goldman and Citigroup. Overnight, Section 109 was unceremoniously ditched, and what was pitched as a bailout of both banks and homeowners instantly became a bank-only operation... (Link).
The Democrats voted for an very imperfect bill with the intention of helping homeowners. That is why they signed on. Not to help plutocrats.
Anyway... will a predictable response include denigrating the source?
No response forthcoming...
Delete