Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z

Sep 2015
13,274
4,900
Brown Township, Ohio
#41
The article talks about Generation Z being "more conservative".
People should not confuse the modern day Republican party with "conservatism". :rolleyes:

The article claims the Generation Z "leans" Republican, but then not one iota of data presented in the article shows that to be true.
But studies show that Gen Z’s views closely resemble those of Libertarian or Moderate Republicans, and that they related with Donald Trump on issues like national security and job creation.​

Having overlap on two issues is not the same thing as voting Republican....
In fact, one should raise the question as to WHY DOES THE ARTICLE STATE ONLY TWO EXAMPLES FOR OVERLAP WITH TRUMP
There are a LOT more than just two issues out there on the political concern spectrum.
And one of the two issues is "jobs"??? Trump's stated position on jobs isn't really that unique... We all want job growth. :rolleyes:

A better article that does more analysis...
The Post-Millennials Should Scare the Hell Out of the GOP
Even as the political world continues to debate the effects of the millennial generation (those Americans born, depending on the definition, between 1981 or 1982 and 1997 or 2000), there’s a new reality just on the horizon, which the debate on guns after the Parkland massacre has accelerated: the post-millennial generation, that more clearly 21st-century cohort (sometimes called Generation Z) that is just now beginning to make its way onto the voting rolls.​
We’ve all seen the high-school kids protesting both gun violence and the pols who are in thrall to the gun lobby. But there’s less-anecdotal data becoming available about the attitudes of the post-millennials, as reported by Ron Brownstein. And it sure looks dangerous for the future of Trump-style politics, or perhaps Republican politics generally.​
Basically, everything about the millennial generation that threatens the GOP — its diversity, tolerance, and relative disdain for values rooted in conservative Christianity — is even more likely to be manifested among the post-millennials.​
“It’s difficult to see how the GOP will gain ground among younger adults as this newest cohort continues its demographic and cultural drift away from the average GOP voter,” says Daniel Cox, research director of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, which recently conducted one of the most extensive surveys of attitudes among post-millennials in partnership with MTV. “The cultural disconnect is only going to grow. The average GOP voter is a middle-aged white Christian. That’s simply not what the US is going to look like in the future.”​

For one thing, the post-millennials are roughly half nonwhite. “Already … a majority of post-millennials are kids of color in 13 states and 38 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, ranging from Los Angeles, San Antonio and Houston to New York, Chicago and Memphis.” That trend is likely to intensify. And while it’s a bit early to nail down specific political leanings in kids this young, a survey of students entering college in 2016 is illustrative of what we are likely to see, says Brownstein:​
In that poll, 80% of the entering students said the federal government should address climate change, 71% said the wealthy should pay higher taxes and 68% said gun control laws should be more strict — all priorities that Trump and congressional Republicans reject.
Also in the survey, 36% of the entering students identified themselves as “far left” or “liberal.” That was a significant increase from the 24% that so identified in 1997, around the time the first millennials entered college … Among entering women, the study found, over 41% in the new poll identified as liberal or far left, the highest number recorded since the survey began in 1966.​

There are some signs of hope for Republicans among post-millennials, as some findings from a different survey of 15–24-year-olds (basically younger millennials and post-millennials) by the Public Religion Research Institute and MTV show:​
White young people (35%) hold more favorable views of Trump than Hispanic (17%), API (6%), and black young people (5%). However, young white people are less favorably inclined towards Trump than white Americans overall; 46% of white Americans view Trump favorably.​

More importantly, the demographics of these young people make pro-Trump pockets less important:​
Seventy percent of young people view former president Barack Obama favorably, while 28% have an unfavorable opinion of him. In sharp contrast, only 25% of young people view Donald Trump positively, while 72% have an unfavorable view of him.


The Post-Millennials Should Scare the Hell Out of the GOP[/QUOTE

Gen Z is the new threat proved by Harvard Reachers. No pun or satire intended.
 
Dec 2013
31,211
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#42
This crap you pull is pathetic.
You asked me about what I said.
When I explain it, you call it a red herring???
:rolleyes:

Yet another excuse to repeat yourself as you ignore what I said...
And the stupid part of your response is I WAS NOT REPLYING TO what you are requoting at me.
That was a post you made to somebody else that I never even replied to. But somehow I'm wrong in that situation? :rolleyes:

I was responding to another post, but now you want to obfuscate what I was replying to by moving the goal-posts...



How the heck you claim they are libertarian is beyond me...
Libertarians Are Politically Homeless in the Trump Era - The Atlantic




"warmongering"?
"fracturing"?
:rolleyes:
Seriously. Do you just say crap that sounds good?
I seriously think you lack critical thinking skills and the ability to view the conversation as a whole. This must be why you create these little tangents and then argue them out of the blue.

First you go on about the gop, then what...? "True socialism" jeepers.


The DNC is split. It seems as if the socialist are making a move for power now. This is in no way a "fiscally conservative" movment and appears to be the future of the DNC
 
May 2018
2,479
1,718
USA
#43
66% of our national debt was borrowed by Democrats due to their overspending.
Republicans over spending is 10% of our national debt
Divided congresses have created 24% of our national debt

Red States are more fiscally sound than Blue states.

so explain that Dems are more fiscally conservative thingy again.
LOL....so that's the official line from Republican Fantasyland?

Now...time for some REALITY. The Federal Government ran a SMALL deficit under Jimmy Carter. At the end of his four years the country was $700 billion in the hole. Ronald "Raygun" came in to office and slashed taxes for the 1% IN HALF. The rest of us saw a series of tax INCREASES under "Raygun" (call him that because of the TRILLIONS he blew on Star Wars). Nevermind he'd drastically cut taxes Reagan proceeded to blow tons of money on "Star Wars" and military appropriations. By the time the incompetent moron was out of office the US National Debt was TRIPLE what it was when he came into office (while running on, get ready for this, a platform of "fiscal responsibility"). That massive upper class tax cut has STAYED IN EFFECT SINCE. Almost the entirety of the US National debt is due to the incompetence of Ronald Reagan.

Fast forward to Clinton (the Bush I years are highly forgettable, despite him starting a war in Iraq)...Clinton, despite Republican opposition, put the USA back into the black by, surprise surprise, cutting spending and increasing taxes on the wealthy (albeit slightly). The USA was running a SURPLUS when Clinton left office and the national debt would be completely paid off if not for...

GW BUSH.....massive upper class tax cut, then continued the tax cuts despite vastly increasing military expenditures and starting 2 wars (which we're still paying for). By the time incompetent GW left office he'd doubled the national debt from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion. Then Obama took over and the GOP had control of the House for 6 years. The GOP refused to let Obama kill the Bush upper class tax cuts. Plus, the USA was spending further TRILLIONS fighting the wars the incompetent boob Bush started. Bush's wars have cost us over $5.5 TRILLION.

Therefore the GOP owns ALL the national debt due to their fiscal ineptitude/incompetence.
 
Likes: RNG
Dec 2013
31,211
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#44
LOL....so that's the official line from Republican Fantasyland?

Now...time for some REALITY. The Federal Government ran a SMALL deficit under Jimmy Carter. At the end of his four years the country was $700 billion in the hole. Ronald "Raygun" came in to office and slashed taxes for the 1% IN HALF. The rest of us saw a series of tax INCREASES under "Raygun" (call him that because of the TRILLIONS he blew on Star Wars). Nevermind he'd drastically cut taxes Reagan proceeded to blow tons of money on "Star Wars" and military appropriations. By the time the incompetent moron was out of office the US National Debt was TRIPLE what it was when he came into office (while running on, get ready for this, a platform of "fiscal responsibility"). That massive upper class tax cut has STAYED IN EFFECT SINCE. Almost the entirety of the US National debt is due to the incompetence of Ronald Reagan.

Fast forward to Clinton (the Bush I years are highly forgettable, despite him starting a war in Iraq)...Clinton, despite Republican opposition, put the USA back into the black by, surprise surprise, cutting spending and increasing taxes on the wealthy (albeit slightly). The USA was running a SURPLUS when Clinton left office and the national debt would be completely paid off if not for...

GW BUSH.....massive upper class tax cut, then continued the tax cuts despite vastly increasing military expenditures and starting 2 wars (which we're still paying for). By the time incompetent GW left office he'd doubled the national debt from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion. Then Obama took over and the GOP had control of the House for 6 years. The GOP refused to let Obama kill the Bush upper class tax cuts. Plus, the USA was spending further TRILLIONS fighting the wars the incompetent boob Bush started. Bush's wars have cost us over $5.5 TRILLION.

Therefore the GOP owns ALL the national debt due to their fiscal ineptitude/incompetence.
The Reagan administration had a completely fiat currency that the US had never known before. (Carter was the 1st administration to run w it and the obvious inflation occurred.) This allows the state to "borrow" even more non existent "money" than before.

Obama was just bush on steroids, expanding the surveillance state, the war on whistleblowers, and proxy wars.

Sad when people dont see this.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2005
7,274
1,911
California
#45
And yet another Sabcat post where it has nothing but:
* insults, and
* repeating previous arguments without even bothering to address the points made...

I seriously think you lack critical thinking skills and the ability to view the conversation as a whole. This must be why you create these little tangents and then argue them out of the blue.
First you go on about the gop, then what...? "True socialism" jeepers.
Oh no. And I was up all night last night concerned about your opinion of me...
#sarcasm

Sabcat, does this insulting crap work on anybody?

I've already explained how the GOP comment wasn't a tangent. You are the only one who tries to pretend it is.
Your opening post tried to claim that the DNC needed to be concerned because of perceived differences between Gen Z political position and the DNC positions.
I pointed out that Gen Z actually has more overlap with the DNC than they do with the GOP.
But either you can't grasp that or you refuse to address it. Either way, your failure to address does not sway anybody else's opinion.

As to "true socialism", you are hilarious on this.
YOU ARE THE ONE who brought up (unsubstantiated) allegations of the DNC being ruled by socialism.
I repudiate this and suddenly I am the one who is not topical?
:rolleyes:


The DNC is split. It seems as if the socialist are making a move for power now. This is in no way a "fiscally conservative" movment and appears to be the future of the DNC
And you repeat yourself yet again while again failing to substantiate your claims when challenged...
:rolleyes:

Can you provide any evidence regarding socialism having any kind of dominating effect on the DNC?
Can you address the fact that the Democrat presidents REDUCE the deficit while the Repub presidents RAISE the deficit?
 
Apr 2013
34,969
23,665
Left coast
#46
The Reagan administration had a completely fiat currency that the US had never known before. (Carter was the 1st administration to run w it and the obvious inflation occurred.) This allows the state to "borrow" even more non existent "money" than before.

Obama was just bush on steroids, expanding the surveillance state, the war on whistleblowers, and proxy wars.

Sad when people dont see this.
The US dollar was a fiat currency long before that. And what choice is there? I challenged people to come up with a better system and no one could. I don't know if that thread would have survived the software change. Not worth digging up anyway.
 
Dec 2013
31,211
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#47
And yet another Sabcat post where it has nothing but:
* insults, and
* repeating previous arguments without even bothering to address the points made...


Oh no. And I was up all night last night concerned about your opinion of me...
#sarcasm

Sabcat, does this insulting crap work on anybody?

I've already explained how the GOP comment wasn't a tangent. You are the only one who tries to pretend it is.
Your opening post tried to claim that the DNC needed to be concerned because of perceived differences between Gen Z political position and the DNC positions.
I pointed out that Gen Z actually has more overlap with the DNC than they do with the GOP.
But either you can't grasp that or you refuse to address it. Either way, your failure to address does not sway anybody else's opinion.

As to "true socialism", you are hilarious on this.
YOU ARE THE ONE who brought up (unsubstantiated) allegations of the DNC being ruled by socialism.
I repudiate this and suddenly I am the one who is not topical?
:rolleyes:



And you repeat yourself yet again while again failing to substantiate your claims when challenged...
:rolleyes:

Can you provide any evidence regarding socialism having any kind of dominating effect on the DNC?
Can you address the fact that the Democrat presidents REDUCE the deficit while the Repub presidents RAISE the deficit?
SMH

Let's try an analogy

I say: i heard that young women are buying less fords

You: young women are not buying chevys, maybe at a greater rate

Me: thats nice. Both cars are shit. Fords transmissions are junk.

You: did you hear that chevys rust?

Me: why do you keep talking about chevys?


And then there is this.

YOU ARE THE ONE who brought up (unsubstantiated) allegations of the DNC being ruled by socialism.


...and this is why i "repeating previous arguments without even bothering to address the points made..."

Because you make stuff and then argue about that.

[Ruled/]

No i have stated that the DNC is "fracturing"


You really "need evidence" of the socialist movment w/in the American left? You are either being intentionally obtuse (again) or live under a rock. It is discussed here, on this site...often.

If you want to discuss US Presidents and their effects on the deficit i am sure that there are plenty of threads already on that topic in not feel free to start one.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
31,211
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#48
The US dollar was a fiat currency long before that. And what choice is there? I challenged people to come up with a better system and no one could. I don't know if that thread would have survived the software change. Not worth digging up anyway.
Yup but it was at least partially and theoretically backed by gold.


I support independent, decentralised currencies as i have said numerous times before.
 
Nov 2005
7,274
1,911
California
#49
Sabcat, once again you spend soooo much effort trying to explain why you won't argue the topical point...
... instead of actually talking about the topical point.

SMH
Let's try an analogy
No.
Let's not.
Because analogies rely on being able to substantiate their link back to what is actually going on.
And that is where we have a dispute...

You claim:
Because you make stuff and then argue about that.
I have REPEATEDLY asked you to document / explain this claim, but you refuse to do so

So, once again what you are CLAIMING is understood.
HOW YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION / what you base that conclusion on is something you repeatedly fail to substantiate.
You claiming a strawman argument has been made is one thing. I understand what a strawman argument is.
Actually showing where that happened is the problem you refuse to tackle. Being able to substantiate how I "make stuff" / how it doesn't apply to what you're saying is what you habitually fail at.

I could make the same accusation against you (Because you make stuff...), but if I were to do so, I would provide the example and explicitly show how you are doing that.


No i have stated that the DNC is "fracturing"
And you have provided no evidence of this either...


You really "need evidence" of the socialist movment w/in the American left? You are either being intentionally obtuse (again) or live under a rock. It is discussed here, on this site...often.
It being "discussed" is not relevant. Flat earth is also discussed, but being discussed does not make it true.

By your approach, BitChute and Gab being home to racists / anti-semites is "discussed". Does that, in and of itself, prove anything?

And like I've already pointed out, you are moving the goalposts by claiming "w/in the American left".
Earlier you made a much stronger claim to socialism and the direction of the American left. THAT is what I'm asking you to prove...
If you are now just back-pedaling to claiming essentially that "they exist" (my phrase) w/in the American left, I never asked for proof of that.


If you want to discuss US Presidents and their effects on the deficit i am sure that there are plenty of threads already on that topic in not feel free to start one.
Again with this crap where you refuse to address people addressing your statements, because you want another thread for it...
When the truth is (from experience) you won't discuss various topics regardless of what thread they are raised in...
 
Last edited:
Likes: RNG
Dec 2013
31,211
18,691
Beware of watermelons
#50
Sabcat, once again you spend soooo much effort trying to explain why you won't argue the topical point...
... instead of actually talking about the topical point.


No.
Let's not.
Because analogies rely on being able to substantiate their link back to what is actually going on.
And that is where we have a dispute...

You claim:

I have REPEATEDLY asked you to document / explain this claim, but you refuse to do so

So, once again what you are CLAIMING is understood.
HOW YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION / what you base that conclusion on is something you repeatedly fail to substantiate.
You claiming a strawman argument has been made is one thing. I understand what a strawman argument is.
Actually showing where that happened is the problem you refuse to tackle. Being able to substantiate how I "make stuff" / how it doesn't apply to what you're saying is what you habitually fail at.

I could make the same accusation against you (Because you make stuff...), but if I were to do so, I would provide the example and explicitly show how you are doing that.



And you have provided no evidence of this either...



It being "discussed" is not relevant. Flat earth is also discussed, but being discussed does not make it true.

By your approach, BitChute and Gab being home to racists / anti-semites is "discussed". Does that, in and of itself, prove anything?

And like I've already pointed out, you are moving the goalposts by claiming "w/in the American left".
Earlier you made a much stronger claim to socialism and the direction of the American left. THAT is what I'm asking you to prove...
If you are now just back-pedaling to claiming essentially that "they exist" (my phrase) w/in the American left, I never asked for proof of that.



Again with this crap where you refuse to address people addressing your statements, because you want another thread for it...
When the truth is (from experience) you won't discuss various topics regardless of what thread they are raised in...
Try as you may i have no interest in discussing the gop, presidents and their effects on the deficits or any of the other things you are arguing inside of your head in this thread.

I will gladly discuss genZ and the DNC as that happens to be the topic.

The fact that the DNC is currently fracturing happens to be on topic.



So Bernie Sanders, Alexandra occasional cortex and the number of other socialists w/in the party making a play to reshape the direction of the DNC and the support they are gaining from the people is not real? You need evidence of this?



Again. Your entire post is intentionally obtuse