Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As Millies move up the age ladder, their party preference is unlikely to change, but they will vote more often, as older people always do.

I don't believe this. It depends on events, but as people age and get more responsibility and start families, a lot of things look different.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I don't believe this. It depends on events, but as people age and get more responsibility and start families, a lot of things look different.

James50

The Lost remained Republican voters all their lives. The GIs remained Democrats all theirs. The only way that Millennials will become more conservative as they get older is that they may find events moving to their left, in large measure at their own instigation. Even then, if they follow the GI pattern, we should expect huge progressive pushes from them as they move into power early in the next 2T.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not at all clear to me how redistricting can give one party an advantage over the other.

This is how it works. Suppose you have a state with 4 districts that is 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans statewide. the state has 2 million voters, 500,000 per district. 1 million vote Democratic and 1 million vote Republican.

You could have 4 competitive districts. By a fair districting system, you should expect 2 Democratic seats and 2 Republican seats.

Or

You could create one district that is disproportionately Democratic -- let's say 80 percent. You have 400,000 of the Democratic voters concentrated in that one district, and only 100,000 of the Republican voters.

That means that the other 3 districts will have, between them, 600,000 Democratic votors and 900,000 Republican voters. Ergo, 3 safe Republican districts and only 1 safe Republican district.

Of course, it could go the other way, with 3 safe Democratic districts and 1 safe Republican district.

All right, Jenny, I can see that; but at the same time, the more Republican seats are created in that way, the less safe each seat will be. Also, as mobile as people are in the modern world, it's not realistic to expect demographic distribution to remain stable. If the redistricters get particularly greedy, they could set up something that will result in massive losses in the wake of a single Democratic wave. It would create more seats with a decent chance of going Republican, but all of them less secure than the smaller Democratic core.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is how it works. Suppose you have a state with 4 districts that is 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans statewide. the state has 2 million voters, 500,000 per district. 1 million vote Democratic and 1 million vote Republican.

You could have 4 competitive districts. By a fair districting system, you should expect 2 Democratic seats and 2 Republican seats.

Or

You could create one district that is disproportionately Democratic -- let's say 80 percent. You have 400,000 of the Democratic voters concentrated in that one district, and only 100,000 of the Republican voters.

That means that the other 3 districts will have, between them, 600,000 Democratic votors and 900,000 Republican voters. Ergo, 3 safe Republican districts and only 1 safe Republican district.

Of course, it could go the other way, with 3 safe Democratic districts and 1 safe Republican district.

You have just described the racial gerrymandering in Georgia. We have only one white democratic congressman left. The other 4 democrats are African-American. And the other 8 are white republicans in mostly safe seats.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Lost remained Republican voters all their lives. The GIs remained Democrats all theirs. The only way that Millennials will become more conservative as they get older is that they may find events moving to their left, in large measure at their own instigation. Even then, if they follow the GI pattern, we should expect huge progressive pushes from them as they move into power early in the next 2T.

Lots of Lost voted for Lyndon Johnson. Lots of GIs voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Boomers, of course, have been all over the place; yet when they were in their early 20s, they were thought of as the most radical generation in history.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Lots of Lost voted for Lyndon Johnson.

So did lots of Republicans.

Lots of GIs voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

So did lots of Democrats. That's what happens in landslide elections. (Same applies to LBJ of course.)

Boomers, of course, have been all over the place; yet when they were in their early 20s, they were thought of as the most radical generation in history.

Parts of us were radical. (Most radical in history? Not so sure about that. In recent history/living memory, yes.) The generation as a whole, no. Also, our radicalism was more cultural than political; we were reshaping the nation's mind-set and attitudes, not its voting patterns.

A Civic generation is very different from an Idealist generation, though. The Millennials' focus is on politics much more than ours was, and less on culture.

Actually, I'm going to say something here that will make no sense according to the polls but I believe it's true: while Millennials are politically progressive, they are culturally conservative. How can I say that in view of the fact that Millennials poll the highest support for gay rights, gay marriage, racial and gender equality, etc? Very simple: for them, those ARE conservative positions. Boomers and Xers have pushed the envelope on the cultural front magnificently far, and Millennials have grown up in an environment shaped by them having done so. They adopt and accept the overall Xer take on social issues. But they don't push the edge of that envelope themselves much at all. There's a new status quo for young people on social issues, and Millennials live in it.

Thus, while they're seen as way-out far-left social progressives today, by the time they start entering elderhood in the next Awakening, those same positions will be old hat and Millies still will not have budged much from them. At that point, they'll be old fogies, and will be regarded by the next Idealists much as we regarded GIs when we were young. Oh, God, did they seem terminally not-with-it! But in terms of politics and economics rather than culture, the GIs were always very progressive compared to other generations, their whole lives long.

There is every reason to expect the same from Millennials, assuming that the generational cycle holds true.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is how it works. Suppose you have a state with 4 districts that is 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans statewide. the state has 2 million voters, 500,000 per district. 1 million vote Democratic and 1 million vote Republican.

You could have 4 competitive districts. By a fair districting system, you should expect 2 Democratic seats and 2 Republican seats.

Or

You could create one district that is disproportionately Democratic -- let's say 80 percent. You have 400,000 of the Democratic voters concentrated in that one district, and only 100,000 of the Republican voters.

That means that the other 3 districts will have, between them, 600,000 Democratic votors and 900,000 Republican voters. Ergo, 3 safe Republican districts and only 1 safe Republican district.

Of course, it could go the other way, with 3 safe Democratic districts and 1 safe Republican district.

Utah is floating the idea of taking what Democrats they have and dividing them evenly between the four Representative districts they expect to have. That would probably mean dividing Salt Lake County, and possibly Salt Lake City, four ways.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, I'm going to say something here that will make no sense according to the polls but I believe it's true: while Millennials are politically progressive, they are culturally conservative. How can I say that in view of the fact that Millennials poll the highest support for gay rights, gay marriage, racial and gender equality, etc? Very simple: for them, those ARE conservative positions. Boomers and Xers have pushed the envelope on the cultural front magnificently far, and Millennials have grown up in an environment shaped by them having done so. They adopt and accept the overall Xer take on social issues. But they don't push the edge of that envelope themselves much at all. There's a new status quo for young people on social issues, and Millennials live in it.

Thus, while they're seen as way-out far-left social progressives today, by the time they start entering elderhood in the next Awakening, those same positions will be old hat and Millies still will not have budged much from them. At that point, they'll be old fogies, and will be regarded by the next Idealists much as we regarded GIs when we were young. Oh, God, did they seem terminally not-with-it! But in terms of politics and economics rather than culture, the GIs were always very progressive compared to other generations, their whole lives long.

There is every reason to expect the same from Millennials, assuming that the generational cycle holds true.

I agree. To us Millies "Socially Liberal" attitudes are the status quo and "Social Conservatism" is reactionary stupidity.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So did lots of Republicans.



So did lots of Democrats. That's what happens in landslide elections. (Same applies to LBJ of course.)




A Civic generation is very different from an Idealist generation, though. The Millennials' focus is on politics much more than ours was, and less on culture.

Actually, I'm going to say something here that will make no sense according to the polls but I believe it's true: while Millennials are politically progressive, they are culturally conservative. How can I say that in view of the fact that Millennials poll the highest support for gay rights, gay marriage, racial and gender equality, etc? Very simple: for them, those ARE conservative positions. Boomers and Xers have pushed the envelope on the cultural front magnificently far, and Millennials have grown up in an environment shaped by them having done so. They adopt and accept the overall Xer take on social issues. But they don't push the edge of that envelope themselves much at all. There's a new status quo for young people on social issues, and Millennials live in it.

Under-30s made up 10% of the electorate in the election we just had. That's a pathetically low figure. There's no evidence yet that Mllennials will be a particularly political generation.

Originally Posted by James50

I don't believe this. It depends on events, but as people age and get more responsibility and start families, a lot of things look different.

James50

It will be interesting (and for liberals like me, suspenseful) to see. Civics may be more inclined to be liberal as we define it today, because they trust institutions and like to work together on problems. On the other hand, all generations get more conservative as they get older. Boomers got conservative at a slower pace than Xers; generations differ in this respect. So the increase in the number of Millies voting favors Democrats, as does the dying off of Silents. Meanwhile all generations are becoming more conservative as they age, which favors Republicans. The hope for Democrats and liberals is that the Millies may retain their liberal tendencies longer than Xers and even Boomers did, as they increase their voting numbers.

Also, there's the dynamic of population shift to red states. This favors Republicans, but meanwhile red states are getting a more diverse population, including hispanics. California used to be close, but voted Republican regularly. Now it is fairly reliably blue. The same trends are happening more slowly in other states like Arizona that vote Republican today. They are slowly becoming more liberal.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Gerrymandering will of course make absolutely no difference to Obama's chances of reelection. Nor will it make any difference in the Senatorial elections. It may make it more difficult for the Democrats to retake the House. That's all.

To get anything at all done, it appears, the Democrats have to have all three by a wide margin (that means something like 65 or 70 senators and at least a 50 vote majority in the House).

Originally Posted by Odin

2012 Senate outlook for Dems: Good.

I think this is overly optimistic about the "easy" Dem holds. Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin all look tough right now. Maybe they will hold, but we can't say for sure.

Meanwhile, the pickup suggestions for NV and MA do look promising. Even so, unless the filibuster rules change, the Senate will continue to be gridlocked even if the Dems hold the Senate.

The frustration level with Washington is only going to rise. What that will lead to is anyone's guess. The voters can't tell whom to blame.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Under-30s made up 10% of the electorate in the election we just had. That's a pathetically low figure. There's no evidence yet that Mllennials will be a particularly political generation.

Sure there is, David, you're just not seeing it, and you're cherry-picking that one datum to deny it. But this was an election in which progressive voters, including Millennials, stayed home. It's not indicative of much all by itself.

The evidence that Millennials are political lies in their activism as much as in their votes -- and that activism does not take a form that is found on the MSM. Perhaps this will help:

http://www.thenation.com/article/onl...pressure-obama

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...troots-activi/

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_ml...686_index.html

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9426841606

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Young+.....-a0198820658

http://www.torvex.com/jmcdaid/node/1515

http://www.providencephoenix.com/fea...s/05141399.asp

And I could go on and on. This is only a sampler. As for voter turnout:

http://thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections

Let that balance out your observation about this year, which is anomalous precisely because -- and for the reason why -- it was a Republican victory.

The activism of Millennials is on-line and grassroots and does not, as Boomer activism did and still does, rest so much on guerrilla theater. For these and other reasons, it often happens under the radar of the mainstream media. But it's no less real for that.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, I'm going to say something here that will make no sense according to the polls but I believe it's true: while Millennials are politically progressive, they are culturally conservative. How can I say that in view of the fact that Millennials poll the highest support for gay rights, gay marriage, racial and gender equality, etc? Very simple: for them, those ARE conservative positions. Boomers and Xers have pushed the envelope on the cultural front magnificently far, and Millennials have grown up in an environment shaped by them having done so. They adopt and accept the overall Xer take on social issues. But they don't push the edge of that envelope themselves much at all. There's a new status quo for young people on social issues, and Millennials live in it.
.

I'm going to have to both agree and disagree with what you said. I think you're right that us Millies aren't going to push the envelope much in terms of cultural values such as gay rights, racial equality etc. I do think though, that we we push the envelope in cultural identity. I think the Internet and globalization has irrevocably changed how we view ourselves in the grand scheme of the world. I think, less and less people will identify themselves as American (culturally, we'll always do it geographically), and more will identify themselves as just people. Just as America served as a melting pot for disparate cultures to become "American," American culture will eventually melt into a larger human culture.

Or something like that.

Another sign that the 2010 election is the Repugs dead cat bounce or high tide mark -

Just two weeks later -

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...VA_1116205.pdf

Virginia’s 13 electoral votes still in Obama’s column

Raleigh, N.C. – In his overwhelming 2008 victory, President Obama turned Virginia
blue for the first time since Lyndon Johnson’s landslide in 1964. Some speculate that
that was a temporary trend due to be reversed in 2012, but PPP’s first look at the state
almost two years from the election suggests otherwise. Just three weeks following the
low point of his presidency, Obama leads all four current Republican frontrunners by
healthy margins, and has a positive job approval rating in the Old Dominion.

PPP’s final 2008 poll of the state which nailed the actual 53-46 result reflected an
electorate in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans by five points. This electorate,
at D +1, is more evenly split, but still gives the president a 50-45 job performance mark,
better than PPP has measured him almost anywhere in 2010.

Obama posts his strongest leads against Sarah Palin (52-41) and Newt Gingrich (51-40),
with smaller advantages over Mike Huckabee (49-44) and Mitt Romney (48-43). The
president has at least 91% of his party’s votes against any of the Republicans, with no
more than 5% defecting. At 85%, Huckabee gets the most Republican support, and
Gingrich, at 79%, the least. A Palin candidacy would be most welcome to the president’s
team, as he leads her 53-36 with independents, a far larger margin than he sports against
Gingrich (49-41), Huckabee (45-43), or Romney (a 42-42 tie). The flip side is that
Obama would get the least Republican support (7%) against Palin than the others (10%
against Gingrich and 9% versus the other two).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Another sign that the 2010 election is the Repu(lican)s dead cat bounce or high tide mark -

Just two weeks later -

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...VA_1116205.pdf

I'm going to make a suggestion:

Watch the approval ratings for Senator Pat Toomey (R, PA), a clear-cut ideologue who will likely stand for every anti-labor, anti-poor, and anti-environment stance of his paymasters. If his approval ratings sink low and fast, then the GOP victory of 2010 is very much a freak unlikely to be repeated in 2012.

Poll: D.C. sees midterms differently

The big disconnect: D.C. elites think Obama will be reelected, but the public doubts it

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Poll: D.C. sees midterms differently

The big disconnect: D.C. elites think Obama will be reelected, but the public doubts it

Maybe the political elites know something that the general public doesn't know. Could it be that the "political elites" know about demographics, statistics, history, and probability as the general public doesn't?

The 2010 elections shows what happens when the Republicans have a full-frontal assault on the American psyche with Orwellian propaganda and a shrunken electorate. The people who funded that Orwellian propaganda have shown this time that all that mattered was that their candidate sold out to every right-wing special interest, toed the line on ideology, and wasn't certifiably nuts or (outside the South) racist. That so blatant a corporate stooge as Pat Toomey, former President (on good terms) with the Club for Growth (whose idea of growth is that everyone defers to the asset owners and their executives, and trickle-down economics works miracles worth the suffering of the masses, and if it achieves no such miracle, then at least the Master Class gets to live like sultans and the rest of America is $crewed) over a retired Navy admiral who would have unique insights into military matters and foreign policy suggests that the formula worked.

Will such a formula work? Not unless the GOP is able to ensure a reduced electorate. Note well that the 112nd Congress has yet to convene. Note well that it could waste time investigating every liberal for a "lack of patriotism", the investigations backfiring. Note well that the political system could have gridlock, and the House majority could get the blame. In such cases, President Obama wins.

The GOP has learned nothing from its electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008 except "Be more ruthless, be more strident, purge out the moderates, and be more doctrinaire", which might be appropriate for un-American groups like Communist parties and fascist movements. It stands for the same old failed policies as those when it last had a majority in both Houses of Congress. When the Senate minority leader says that the first priority is to ensure that Barack Obama is a one-term President, such demonstrates that 2010 could be a fluke. It's much the same GOP that made a$$es of itself under Dubya, and if it does so under Obama it could get another drubbing.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Under-30s made up 10% of the electorate in the election we just had. That's a pathetically low figure. There's no evidence yet that Mllennials will be a particularly political generation.

It's a midterm election. It's not "pathetically low" in that context.

There is one thing we know about 2012 already. The Democrats will not be winning back control of the House.

Originally Posted by Silifi

It's a midterm election. It's not "pathetically low" in that context.

That's correct. 2006 was unusually high for turnout by this group for mid-term elections so that 2010 appears to be low but it really is no different than most other mid-terms.

2010 was pathetically low compared to 2008 and 2006.

The thing is, if this group comes out in 2012 like it did in 2008, and their voting pattern holds (i.e. predominately for the Dems), they would swamp the turnout and pattern of the 2010 result.... and yes, JPT that would give the Dems an easy majority in the House. I don’t think even gerrymandering could counter it. That's why Nancy is holding on; she's pretty confident she'll get the gravel again.

It really comes down to whether Obama can inspire this group again. The Repugs with 26% approval ratings aren’t the driving factor; they’re just the backwash.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's correct. 2006 was unusually high for turnout by this group for mid-term elections so that 2010 appears to be low but it really is no different than most other mid-terms.

2010 was pathetically low compared to 2008 and 2006.

The thing is, if this group comes out in 2012 like it did in 2008, and their voting pattern holds (i.e. predominately for the Dems), they would swamp the turnout and pattern of the 2010 result.... and yes, JPT that would give the Dems an easy majority in the House. I don’t think even gerrymandering could counter it. That's why Nancy is holding on; she's pretty confident she'll get the gravel again.

It really comes down to whether Obama can inspire this group again. The Repugs with 26% approval ratings aren’t the driving factor; they’re just the backwash.

I would put the chances of Obama getting the same kind of turnout in 2012 that he got in 2008 at approximately zero. Better than 2010? Presumably. Like 2008? Zero.

I suspect that both parties will stagger into 2012 about as relatively unpopular as they are now. And I don't expect that any kind of third party bid will affect the final outcome.
I believe this because I don't expect that the Obama team, which looks like it will be composed largely of the same people who bumbled and fumbled for two years, to be no more effective in the next two. OTOH, I also expect that the GOP house will be found repugnant in many of their actions both in and outside of the chamber by many independents.
Thus, given the demographic advantages that the Democrats will have given the larger, younger, more diverse and more liberal electorate that will show up in 2012,I expect a second term for Obama but by less than a landslide margin.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is one thing we know about 2012 already. The Democrats will not be winning back control of the House.

Non sequitur.

Nancy Pelosi was the Minority whip as the Democrats took over the House of Representatives. She can be again.

The cookie-cutter Reactionaries who offer the same agenda whether they are in the Oil Patch, the rural South, the rural North, or America's large suburbs won't all succeed in getting re-elected. The test is how well they serve their districts, and I expect mass failure.

I expect them to toe the Party line on economic issues, perhaps even advocating pay cuts and higher taxes on the Working Poor so that the Master Class can get even richer as their money-suppliers demand. I expect some of them to get tripped up investigating people for having the "wrong" political opinions. If they grill someone for "not being American enough", they stand to run into someone who proves that patriotism and support for American corporations isn't the same thing.

Americans are going to see a sharp contrast between the 111th and 112th Congresses and miss the 111th.