Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Millennial Problem (and the Democrats')

|

After easily winning the youth vote in 2004, 2008, and 2012, Democrats are taking millennials for granted. And polls taken earlier this year show that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Dem standard-bearer, will easily trounce either Gov. Chirs Christie or Sen. Rand Paul Paul in 2016.

But such triumphalism about Clinton and the Democratic stranglehold on younger voters is premature, to say the least. While there's no question that the GOP has managed to alienate millennials, there's every reason to believe that top Democrats are doing just about everything they can to squander their currently commanding advantage.

That's from a Daily Beast column I wrote a couple of days ago. Some of the signs include the fact that Obama actually lost to Romney among 18, 19, and 20 year olds in 2012 (click through to col for exact totals) and folks such as Rand Paul are tacking hard to the libertarian side of things of late (see, for instance, the difference between his response to Ferguson and Clinton's).

As the recent Reason-Rupe poll of millennials showed, millennials are less partisan than older voters and despite huge (and declining) support for Barack Obama at the polls, the kids are getting tired of both parties. They absolutely hate the GOP in its current incarnation, but they are also souring on Team Blue as well. Fully 34 percent of 18-29 year-old voters call themselves true independents, meaning they don't lean toward Republicans or Democrats. That compares to just 11 percent on non-leaning independents among voters 30 years old and up. 

The great political achievement of the 21st century so far has been to alienate young voters from the two major parties in the U.S. And the great task for both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 will be to figure out how to woo them back.

Read the whole thing at the Beast.

Advertisement

NEXT: Are Low-Skilled Immigrants Good for the Economy?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I know Reason reruns posts on the weekends, but when the topic is millennials it becomes redundant in the extreme.

    1. Are you saying they’re redundant? That they repeat themselves? That they say the same things over and over?

      1. +1 Dr. Crane

        1. Like millennials know that name…

          1. Sometimes you wanna go
            Where nobody knows your name
            And they don’t care whether you came

  2. Alt text: “One of 17 celebrity couples with ZERO on-screen chemistry.”

  3. It’s actually a great picture of Hillary because it captures her in a typically insincere moment.

    Her exaggerated, demonic smile is what she believes fun, warm, and accessible looks like. She couldn’t be a regular person with all the Metamucil in the world. This is why I’ve never been worried about the possibility of President Hillary.

    1. Al Gore is a thousand times more robotic than Hillary, and he was almost President.

      1. Hillary isn’t robotic – robotic would be an improvement in her case. Hillary is shrill and humorless.

    2. Excellent comment, FSJ. But look at Obama. His expression is less sincere than Hillary’s. And look at those mugs (the beer, not the faces). They’re full. Did either of them actually DRINK any of it?

      1. The rules are different for Obama because of white guilt. If Obama was entirely white, he’d have gotten nowhere.

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised if those were fake beer glasses filled with plastic, especially the way Hillary is waving her’s around.

        1. The way Hillary is waving what around?

    3. This is precisely why you should worry about President Hillary in 2016

  4. I’m pretty sure I already commenting on this post once.

  5. Young people are totally going to turn out for an old, fat, ugly baby boomer who scolds and nags them.

    1. When the “old, fat, ugly baby boomer” is the candidate all their favorite celebs are telling them to vote for, I wouldn’t be surprised if young people do exactly that.

      1. LOL

        Some people, including you apparently, think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity. They can’t. They may well try, but they’ll fail.

        1. think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity

          Michael Moore.

          1. I see your bid and raise you a Lena Dunham.

            1. What’s Obama, chopped liver?

          2. think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity.

            Barack Obama.

        2. the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity.

          The gossip press is full of pieces of shit that are beloved celebrities, at least to enough people to keep them in the news and fabulously wealthy.

          Christ, they turned Obama, a done-nothing Chicago apparatchik, into a beloved celebrity. What more proof do you need?

          1. There has to be some base material to work with. Usually it ‘hotness’, eye candy or sometimes a complete train wreck – neither makes people love the celeb, btw, it just draws their attention.

            And Obama is clearly a very skilled con man – skills which Hillary has never demonstrated. Yes the media pushed him higher than he ever would have got on his own, but he still has some skills.

            1. He doesn’t have any skills. Separated from a teleprompter he’s an utterly clumsy speaker, and fairly boring even with one (that head tilt, turn, tilt, turn back progression gets old real quick). He obviously has zero administrative skills, and his campaign is run by other people. The MSM handles his PR for free.

              He’s a man who gave one ‘good’ speech at the 2004 DNC convention during a historically easy Senate campaign, and rode that along with his melanin levels to the presidency. I remember one of the Sunday talk show personas in 2007 mentioning that, despite the fact he had very little political experience (two years in the Senate), Obama had to run for 2008 rather than wait, because fresh-faced phenoms like him have a short shelf life. I laughed about it then, but now I cry.

              1. All he needed was the political springboard of one good speech. After that, his rock-star talents sprayed him with Teflon. His good looks, athleticism (can you imagine Dick Cheney bouncing around shirtless in the Hawaiian surf with his heart surgery scars?), and public speaking abilities make up for his zerotasticness. The thing with gifts like that is that they make his EVERY utterance, every appearance, every sneeze into a veritable Sermon on the Mount.

                Hillary has a few things to work with — her vagina and her association with Bill — but she doesn’t have the kind of gifts that make her every act a step closer to a lo-fo-vo’s heart.

                And I have just invented a word: lofovo. Low-information voter.

                1. Good looks? Can’t judge. Looks like an ordinary guy to me, not the type that women go crazy for. Romney had better looks to be honest.

                  Athleticism? Did you see him throw out the first pitch at the All Star Game? We’ve been told he’s a good basketball player but no independent evidence of that.

                  Public speaking abilities? Are you serious? Again, even Romney was better there. By a lot. And he wasn’t that great.

                  Now, through the filter of what the MSM lets people see, he looks like all three, but let’s not confuse that with reality.

                  1. There’s obviously a lot of subjectivity here. I think you actually had to use your brain to appreciate Romney’s looks and speaking abilities while Obama had a way of stunning people’s brains and then stealing their hearts.

                    In the end, you can go by the results.

                    1. Obama had a way of stunning people’s brains and then stealing their hearts.

                      Yes, by being black and talking about hope and change and ending the war, and not being Bush.

                    2. Let’s put it this way. If Obama had lost to Hillary in 2008, and Hillary had gone on to win two terms, do you think Obama would have been able to credibly run in 2016?

                      No. F-ing. Way.

                    3. Obama may not have even been able to hold his Senate seat in 2010. What a joke.

                    4. Let’s put it this way. If Obama had lost to Hillary in 2008, and Hillary had gone on to win two terms, do you think Obama would have been able to credibly run in 2016?

                      Hell to the no, but that’s largely my point. If Obama had been ANY of fat, white, old, or boring, he would have lost to Hillary in a landslide. What allowed him to overcome that landslide was sheer magic.

              2. He’s a man who gave one ‘good’ speech at the 2004 DNC convention during a historically easy Senate campaign, and rode that along with his melanin levels to the presidency.

                Oh come on… The guy has other qualifications for office, like not being Hillary Clinton.

                He did get one hell of a windfall though, since it was obvious that who ever ran as the republican nominee after the GWB regime was going to end up on a milk carton next to Fritz Monday.

                -jcr

            2. And Obama is clearly a very skilled con man – skills which Hillary has never demonstrated.

              No he’s not. Obama never really said or did anything remarkable. Almost everything glosing and positive about him has been imbued upon him by the media.

      2. She couldn’t even beat Barry Obama. I one term Senator with zero experience (which is showing BTW).

        I do not fear the Hildabeast.

        1. I’m sure 2016 will disappoint me, but I have little doubt that it will surprise me, regardless of who wins. The only usual suspect mentioned around here that would surprise me is Rand Paul.

          1. Reread my comment — s/b “I certainly doubt it will surprise me”

      3. When the “old, fat, ugly baby boomer” is the candidate all their favorite celebs are telling them to vote for, I wouldn’t be surprised if young people do exactly that.

        My unscientific survey concludes that older white women will turn out for her in droves that swamp other demographics.

        1. Not sure if that’s going to work. Romney and McCain both won older white women.

  6. Dude makes a lot of sense. Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  7. they are also souring on Team Blue as well

    It was inevitable when Millenials found out they were expected to pay for the free health care and the whisper-promised student loan forgiveness never materialized.

    1. The ‘kids’ ie 18-mid 20 year olds that I encounter have mostly come to realize that ‘higher education’ is a scam and basically worthless. Some of them feel compelled to go through the motions to get the credential, but a lot don’t.

      The optimist in me thinks that a paradigm shift away from the post Vietnam education-paternalism paradigm is begining.

      1. I don’t know. The first requirement for any decent office job is still a college degree.

        1. The first requirement for any decent office job

          There are not decent office jobs available to 18 to 25 year olds. Degree or no degree.

          Better off to get certified to install air conditioners or drive a truck.

          1. That’s excellent advice. Unfortunately most of the middle class will send their kids to college. There’s a ridiculous stigma about forgoing college in order to learn a well paying trade.

      2. You get to live away from home for free and party, drink, and fuck every night. The ability to get a job afterward would just be gravy.

        That’s how they think until the student loan payments come due… then it’s Occupy time.

        1. You just described my college experience exactly. Plus I learned to play pool.

          1. EVERY NIGHT???? I assume you stayed for your Master’s. Then your PhD.

          2. I eschewed their lifestyle during those times, preferring to explore the unknown possibilities of existence, practice chastity, build up my STTNG tape collection, and play Killer Instinct from late afternoon till dusk. And now they work for me…. and I will make them pay for what they’ve done.

            1. god you’re a fucking idiot

            2. practice chastity, build up my STTNG tape collection

              You don’t have to mention both of those in the sentence. Building up your STTNG collection implies chastity.

  8. “ALS Association withdraws controversial applications to trademark ‘ice bucket challenge’

    “We’ve received several messages regarding the trademark applications we filed. We filed for these trademarks in good faith as a measure to protect the Ice Bucket Challenge from misuse after consulting with the families who initiated the challenge this summer. However, we understand the public’s concern and are withdrawing the trademark applications. We appreciate the generosity and enthusiasm of everyone who has taken the challenge and donated to ALS charities.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ng-to-try/

    1. They wouldn’t grant my patent on my marvelous invention “water”, either!

  9. I’ve been seeing “I’m ready for Hillary” bumper stickers in my neighborhood, so the machine is starting up.

    Speaking of being redundant, I firmly believe that once this hardcore neighborhood of lefties hears of Lizzie, they will run over to her in droves. Nobody likes Hillary; as soon as there is a viable socialist alternative, they will abandon Hillary just like in 2008.

    1. Really, REALLY: Lizzie isn’t running.

      I’m sure that attentive, Kos-reading socialists are all over the superiority of Liz over Hillary, but to the average old white vagina, the difference is that it’s Hillary’s “turn,” while Liz can afford to wait a bit.

  10. Millenials, as a generational cohort, are social justice warriors. The majority of millenials will vote reliably for the Democrat nominee. When was the last time the 18-24 year old crowd voted Republican? When was the last time they voted overwhelmingly Republican?

    1. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

      1976: Ford 51, Carter 49
      1980: Carter 45, Reagan 44, Anderson 11
      1984: Reagan 61, Mondale 39
      1988: Bush 53, Dukakis 47
      1992: Clinton 46, Bush 33, Perot 21
      1996: Clinton 55, Dole 35, Perot 11
      2000: Bush 47, Gore 47
      2004: Kerry 56, Bush 43
      2008: Obama 66, McCain 32
      2012: Obama 60, Romney 37

      1. 1992: Clinton 46, Bush 33, Perot 21

        I am the 21%
        First and last time I voted for Pres.

        That is one frightening list.

        1. GHWB was probably the best president of my lifetime. How sad is that.

      2. that’s strange — I don’t remember Kerry beating Bush.

        1. 18-24s at that time would have been the trailing edge of Gen X plus the first two years of millenials. Their will was thwarted.

          1. “18-24s at that time would have been the trailing edge of Gen X plus the first two years of millenials.”

            Nope. That’s fucking stupid and wrong.

            1. The figures aren’t for millenials exclusively, it covers the youngest voting block in each election. Starting in 2004 they switched from 18-24 to 18-29 for the youngest voting block.

              1. In 1976 and 1980 it is fact 18-21 before switching to 18-24 in 1984.

      3. Until 2004, they seem to be brainless front-runners. Not that this makes them much different from any other demographic, but at least old people have enough sense to vote for politicians who help them collectively.

        We’ll see how badly millennials do if the Democrats actually do self-immolate and nominate Hillary. I suspect they’ll just follow whatever voting line Comedy Central instructs them to pursue, with most of them not bothering to vote at all once they lack a charismatic empty suit to throw their support behind.

      4. Interesting data, too bad they don’t track the data consistently each election. Track 18-14 through the 2004 election then switch to 18-29 starting in 2008. Then between 2008 and 2012 they switch reporting by income brackets.

        Regardless, over the last 10 elections the youngest voting block voted 6-3 in favor of Democrats (we’ll call Bush-Gore a draw). On average the when Democrats won the election the margin margin was +17 for the Democrat among the youngest voters. Dropping the two Clinton elections as anomalies (i.e., Perot), the Democrat break only falls to +12. If you go another step and drop the Obama elections (basically only look at Carter-Reagan and Kerry-Bush) the Democrat break drops to +4.

        On the flip side in elections won by Republicans the youngest voters only broke on average +10 for the Republican candidate. Dropping the Reagan-Mondale race drops the average break for Republicans to only +4.

        These numbers don’t appear to show much to make Republican’s happy. The youngest voting block appears more inclined to vote for the Democrat. This is especially true when the election involves breaking a long standing tradition (i.e., first black President). With the high probability of the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton or – I hope I’m wrong – Elizabeth Warren, I expect to see a repeat of the last two elections, at least in regards to the youngest voting block.

        1. “These numbers don’t appear to show much to make Republican’s happy.”

          So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in, it’s odds on that they will be rejected by younger voters, regardless of the draw of the ‘free shit’ party.
          And it’ll take some time to repair that brand, assuming they decide to.

          1. So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in

            Remind me again which actual political position you’re referring to.

            If you’re talking about gay marriage, how is that a sexual privacy concern? The same sex couples going to the state asking for a pat on the head and a piece of paper were openly telling the world about their relationship.

            If you’re talking about illegalizing separate-sex locker rooms, saunas, and bathrooms, have fun selling that to the American public. There is a limit to how much sophistry you sociorads are going to get away with.

            1. “If you’re talking about gay marriage, how is that a sexual privacy concern? The same sex couples going to the state asking for a pat on the head and a piece of paper were openly telling the world about their relationship.

              If you’re talking about illegalizing separate-sex locker rooms, saunas, and bathrooms, have fun selling that to the American public. There is a limit to how much sophistry you sociorads are going to get away with.”

              Uh, nice try; fail.
              Remind me how such religious crapola is gonna sell to anyone.
              Yeah, you and the remaining bleevers can keep spouting nonsense; hope it makes you feel good!

  11. And polls taken earlier this year show that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Dem standard-bearer, will easily trounce either Gov. Chirs Christie or Sen. Rand Paul Paul in 2016.

    Libertarian moment!

  12. Hilary seems to have some rather severe health issues. I’m not sure she’s going to run, or get elected.

    1. I haven’t seen anything; got a cite?

      1. I’m not sure what he’s alluding to, but remember she got out of testifying about Benghazi due to a concussion. I seem to recall another conveniently-timed health issue as well.

        1. If you listen to the chattering class in Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton is a virtual certainty for the 2016 Democratic nomination…

          Wasn’t she a virtual certainty for the 2008 Democratic nomination?

    2. She’ll be only two years younger in 2016 than Ronald Reagan was in 1980. And remember all the fun made about his supposed senility in his second term?

  13. Who comes up with all that nonsense?

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.