Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll

MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Enthusiasm for the Democratic Party is waning among millennials as its candidates head into the crucial midterm congressional elections, according to the Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll.

The online survey of more than 16,000 registered voters ages 18 to 34 shows their support for Democrats over Republicans for Congress slipped by about 9 percentage points over the past two years, to 46 percent overall. And they increasingly say the Republican Party is a better steward of the economy.

Although nearly two of three young voters polled said they do not like Republican President Donald Trump, their distaste for him does not necessarily extend to all Republicans or translate directly into votes for Democratic congressional candidates.

...

Only 28 percent of those polled expressed overt support for Republicans in the 2018 poll - about the same percentage as two years earlier.

But that does not mean the rest will turn out to back Democrats, the survey showed. A growing share of voters between ages 18 and 34 years old said they were undecided, would support a third-party candidate or not vote at all.

The shift away from Democrats was more pronounced among white millennials - who accounted for two-thirds of all votes cast in that age group in 2016.

More here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Interesting stuff. It does seem like more and more young people are disillusioned with the two main parties in the US.

As they should be.

We're in the process of a realignment.

This is what happens when your entire campaign is nothing more then manufactured outrage. The difference between the democrats of the 2000s and the democrats of the 2010s is night and day.

Obama won a historic victory on the back of optimism. His message was simple. Together, we can do anything. That works, particularly with the young. Of course being the greatest orator of our generation helped to. He talked about what we need to fix, explained how we could fix it, and asked America to help him do it. America responded by bum rushing the election booth.

Now of days the message is little more then "The other side is deplorable, please don't talk about all the rape, sexual harassment, and so on within our camp..." If Bernie Sanders channels the power of "Yes we can!" in 2020 then the young will come back. If they run another neoconservative in the pocket of billionaires they will stay home.

I don't disagree there. Both parties suck.

Not if you're rich.

If your rich there is no parties, only puppets. The R or D by their name doesn't mean much.

The irony is, if I asked them this question they likely would not answer it like I would

'What specifically about Obama did you find highly unreasonable'

They would answer "Nothing, that is why we switched after he left office."

herp derp

polls were totally wrong about 2016, why should anyone believe polls?

herp derp

so nothing specifically about Obama is unreasonable which is why democrats are bad?

help me out here, why are democrats bad? I bet you my answer would be different then yours...lets find out.

Haha, fair observation. I am not surprised that polls that favour one side are claimed to be fake news by the others.

Well, I ain't a republican, so it isn't really my answer. That said, it would have to be something that happened after 2016. My theory is posted above. When the Democrats campaign on hate they lose. When they campaign on optimism they win. Hopefully they stop being the "They didn't listen to our Apu Outrage!!?!?!?!" and start regaining some ground.

I think we might want to try harder

lets explore the question, what do people find so bad about democrats exactly? lets get tangible.

There are ABSOLUTLY good answers, I just want to see if anyone knows what they are, I bet they dont

My problem with them is pretty straight forward.

1: They govern as conservatives.

2: They use progressive rhetoric when campaigning, but it is just a ploy to get votes. Once they are in office they could care less, save for the occasional lip service on the internet.

95% of my annoyance comes from point one, but point two certainly nettles. I really dislike the fact that being a progressive now means nothing more then calling folks out on the internet.

that is not REMOTELY concrete enough.

that is WAAAAY to abstract.

give us some concrete examples

Well, if you want an example: The Democrats enjoyed many victories in 2006 with an anti-war campaign. They were basically elected to end the war in Iraq. Once they won however they decided to stick to the Bush strategy and timeline. Obama also talked about bringing our troops home, but once elected he decided to stick with the Bush timeline.

We don't have a liberal party in America. We have two conservative parties fighting for the support of billionaires.

very good answer

the things is, I am willing to bet the vast majority of people who think democrats are bad would not say that and could not really answer why with any good hard examples like that.

and I know why that is the case.

I disagree. Internet slapfights are not really representative of anyone. Anytime I have had a conversation in real life it has always been extremely easy to get everyone to start complaining about how much politicians suck. Many make good points, as both parties like to backstab their supporters.

I absolutely have not had that experience.

In fact just today this conversation in real life happened...hand to god I swear it

Me: 'the first phase of the Muller investigation is going to be wrapped up next month'

co-worker: 'the what investigation?'

Me: 'you know the special council into obstruction and collusion?'

co-worker: 'oh...yeah I think they needed to investigate Hillary more then they did'

Most people I have experienced by FAR who are against Democrats really cant make a good concrete argument on policy and actions why they feel that way, that doesnt end up sounding ridiclous

Well, to be fair they should have. It is also possible that I just hang out with better people due to my geographical location and obvious bias against the status quo. Folks who think the status quo is neat only talk to me if they enjoy debate.

@tryit: You aren't a millennial so why would you think it wouldn't be different?

The Peter Pan generation tends to have very grandiose views of what the role of government should be, as seen with their support for Bernie Sanders. Dems aren't anywhere close to a position where they can even pretend they are making progress in areas millennials care about.

because of extensive amount of life experience.

similar to the at work example I just gave that literally happened today.

1993 is the first year I heard someone express how evil and bad Hillary Clinton was. That is a lot of expereince

@tryit: Yeah, I was saying it would be different than your view because these millennials don't have the life experience you have. Maybe I read you comment wrong but it sounded like you were surprised that they'd have a different view than you.

"The irony is, if I asked them this question they likely would not answer it like I would"

no i was saying that the vast majority of people (of any generation) who are against democrats can not make a coherent argument with concrete examples as to why.

Reason for this is because right wing media just pounds people into thinking they should not like democrats but they do not know why, or care to question why and having lived in red areas 100% of my 51 year old life and having most of my family being GOP supporters I can speak with some level of experience on this :)

Regarding polls vis a vi 2016:

"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968".

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

How so? Realignment between the existing parties or a "new party system" altogether?

@Master_Live: Realignment between the parties. There's an outside chance one of the parties could be replaced, but the two party system will remain long term.

The pollsters claimed a Clinton victory was a forgone conclusion for months. They were so confident that liberal news reporters were shocked to near tears when the night didn't go their way. Claiming there was no failure is pure revisionism. Perhaps the data was right, or at least close to right. If so, that means the humans reading it failed hard.

We shouldn't take their word as gospel. They are just folks in the infotainment industry telling you what they think you want to hear.

@kittennose: Yup

Time for a 3rd party take take the throne.

Grass roots, no astroturf, no billionaires, no corporations, no wedge issues.

@kittennose: nobody ever claimed a Clinton victory was guaranteed. The common number was she had an 80% chance of winning. If I say that there's a 5/6 chance a roll of a dice will not be a six and when rolled it lands on a six, does that mean I was wrong?

Come on, buddy. You know for a fact that's not true.

@vl4d_l3nin: ok, give me an example of one of the pollsters saying it's 100% guaranteed.

Come on don´t try a lie that is so obvious

Every Leftist media source out there was sure she would win, even Obama went on a late night and tried to be a comedian about it.

Polls are like yesterdays news , not really interesting.

But would anyone be surprised if the young have lost interest in the "protest" movement spearheaded by the Democrats.

you had HuffPo with their 98.1%, as well as that Princeton polling that put her over 99%. People were straight up ignoring undecided voters, and pollsters just pretended they'd vote for Clinton because Trump is a meanie.

It's not just pollsters, there were tons in the media that declared it over long before it was, and it was gross negligence on their part. They had no reason to do that, other than try to help Clinton win.

Maybe they just couldn't believe anyone would be foolish enough to vote trump.

@Jacanuk: how is what I said a lie?

Although last time we discussed polls you said trump had a 100% chance of winning because he won, and I doubt you've learned what probability is since then.

You mean being every inch as pro-corporations and hawkish (maybe even MORE hawkish in some cases) as Republicans won't get you any votes? Well, I have the solution for that: BE MORE CORPORATE, MOVE FURTHER TO THE RIGHT ON EVERY ISSUE. As long as you sell yourself as "teh woke" party, people will buy it. Right? RIGHT?

Right, which is why Wall Street flocks to Republicans even in spite of disagreeing with almost everything Trump says, which is why Democrats push for diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea while people like John Bolton are calling for all-out war. Face it, son, the Republicans have you hoodwinked.

You are full of lies once again. Clinton outspent trump almost two to one because of her Wall Street backing. Heck, the fact that Wall Street loved her was one of Sander's talking points against her. Crediting the Democrats with Korean Peace is just asinine. Like it or not, that is a trump victory.

Put on your big person undies and debate honestly.

Oh look, the Trump-loving troll is back, here to tell us that racial animus had absolutely nothing to do with Trump getting elected and Hillary only ran on the other side being deplorable (despite having myriad popular policy proposals). For one, I never credited the Democrats for the Korean peace, you bold-faced liar. I said that the Democrats were pushing for diplomacy while the Republicans are putting hawks in positions of power, and that is 100% percent true. Second, Wall Street absolutely does prefer Republicans, so much so that it's willing to risk Trump's reckless moves on trade in order to get tax cuts that Hillary most certainly would not have pushed through, as detailed here:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/apr/16/jim-demint/not-many-times-more-democrats-sometimes-do-raise-m/

Funny, how you keep calling yourself a progressive, but you constantly rally against "social justice warriors" and repeat Heritage Foundation talking points. Why don't you just go back to daddy Putin, troll?

Wow that was a pile of nonsense.

Clinton outspent trump two to one

Clinton's ties to Wall Street

and even Korea credits trump with the peace talks.

As for the rest of your blather: Calling out corporatists on their lies doesn't make me less progressive. Neither does acknowledging that trump did one thing right in a year and a half. Act like an adult for once. Your dishonest tantrums are tiresome.

Most millennials are the product of the American "education" system, so it's no surprise they are stupid.

Still doesn't change the fact that Wall Street spends more on Republicans than on Democrats. Still doesn't change the fact that Trump is putting hawks like John Bolton in a position of power. You can go around throwing slurs at people all you want, doesn't change the fact that your arguments are completely devoid of substance. But by all means, keep spreading Heritage Foundation talking points and calling yourself a progressive.

Your hypocritical rants are too doofy to bother with. Grow up and ditch the lies.

Like I said, it's impossible for you to argue on substance.

Yay! Vote for a third party!