# Voters born in the '90s need to get a clue **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 20, 2016, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423 "2016-09-20T07:59:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ultimate11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/49beb7/32.png) [@ultimate11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultimate11)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/61 "2016-09-20T17:39:09Z")
I was born in 1994. (September 25th, 1994, that is- I was able to vote last election). I got interested during my last year in high school due to the election year, this year, not so much. Third parties? I could waste my vote by not voting altogether- no state is going to go green or yellow anytime soon. Money matters in politics (even though most politicians say they want money out of politics…right :rolleyes:), and I’d rather spend my money in something else than politics. I’m a millennial, but I’m not with the group when it comes to traits- aside from my content choices, I’ve got _my_ future planned out, picking alternative plans to make sure my future is in good hands (and within a couple of weeks I’ll have a job and have no student debt, as I’ve explained in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19604330).) I’ve also kept my ears open and visited message boards (besides here) for the past couple of years, probably one of the unfortunate side effects of being alone, an only child, and ostracized from the friggin’ crowd cause at the time I was socially awkward outside the computer. Well…that, and I was bullied in high school- though as I’ve known in life, eventually things turn around. As I’ve said in life, being an only child has its advantages- more food, access to places already full (except the bar at the top of the World Trade Center- there was one seat open and I still couldn’t get in…), and more reasons to enjoy life without being held back with another individual behind or ahead of me. Back to the topic- I’d like to get a clue when it comes to voting, but I don’t care- and neither do the politicians. What’s the point? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/62 "2016-09-20T17:39:27Z")
I think a lot of people these days are less averse to experiencing something bad, temporarily, if they think it will be for long-term good. I think a significant number of Bernie supporters would be willing to see America suffer through a one-term Trump presidency if it meant “teaching the Democratic Party a lesson” in the long term. Now whether the Democratic Party would actually “learn” what the Bernie supporters want, is another matter. But many people are perfectly to take one step back for several steps forward - or, maybe even take 10 steps back for 15 steps forward. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/63 "2016-09-20T17:50:59Z")
I see no one is acknowledging the fact that (when you take race out of it) 18-30yos are actually less likely to support Hillary than are those over 30. That’s something I didn’t even realize when I started this thread (I thought they were more supportive, just not by a sufficient margin), and it’s pretty damning. > [@RickJay](#): > > So let me get this straight; if someone isn’t on your team, you don’t criticize them, but if they’re a “millennial” they’re automatically on your team? What are the teams, again? I’m losing patience with helping you “get it straight”, but I’ll take another stab. The people I’m irked with are, broadly speaking, on the left. If you just laid out anonymized lists of positions on varying issues (to whatever degree you could define Trump’s positions), they would very strongly prefer Clinton’s (or even leave the two of them out of it, and use the respective parties’ platforms). Not on every point, but most (I don’t agree with the Democratic consensus on some points, like Islam, but I don’t let that obscure my broad agreement with the party’s agenda, and my broad disagreement with the GOP’s). That puts them on “my team”. As does the fact that if Republicans do get control of the presidency along with both houses of Congress, these people are guaran-fucking-teed to be vocally outraged by pretty much every law that gets passed. Yet you and some others like \*\*LHOD \*\*seem to think that if this comes to pass, I should just grit my teeth and smile and nod, not holding the slightest grudge about the fact that if all these people protesting Republican hegemony had _just fucking voted for Clinton_, we wouldn’t be in this pickle. :dubious: Fuck that. I’m not Jesus, turning the other cheek. I’m not even Christian, for chrissakes. ETA: To address what \*\*Velocity \*\*said, if lefties think they can take the party hostage from a minority position by threats of murder-suicide, they’ve got another thing coming. If that’s their tack, then they are just our political enemies, they make our job harder, but we can’t cave to their demands and let them set the agenda without compromise. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/64 "2016-09-20T18:04:10Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Coincidentally, 538 just came out with a story on this subject this morning: > > [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-millennials-arent-united-behind-clinton-like-their-elders/?ex\_cid=538fb](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-millennials-arent-united-behind-clinton-like-their-elders/?ex_cid=538fb) > > The headline is about black Millennials, and how they are far less likely to vote for Hillary than their parents are. But if you look through the data, it turns out that only 28 percent of whites 18-30 (there they go, cutting off thirtysomething Millennials [like I’ve been complaining about](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=776277)) say they plan to vote for Hillary–less than the percentage of whites \*over \*thirty who support her! So those of you saying things like “they are the most likely to vote for Clinton and not Trump”, you might want to rethink your stance. No, not at all. If you’re looking to see which generation is going to win/cost us this election, you might look at the **difference** between their support for the two candidates. Obviously there’s some blurring of generations here, but [this WaPo poll](http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf) from September 5-8 breaks down generational support as follows, with the numbers being Clinton-Trump-Johnson-Stein: \<40: 47-24-17-8 40-64: 43-47-7-0 65+: 50-45-3-0 So under-40 voters favor Clinton over Trump by 23 points, while 40+ voters are a wash. But _the kids_ are the ones who are throwing the election. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/65 "2016-09-20T18:05:12Z")
Hey, they’ve seen the far right wingnuts succesfully hold hostage and take over the other party, I can easily imagine them wondering why can’t they do the same over here. ETA: replying to **SlackerInc** ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/66 "2016-09-20T18:07:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > While I have no doubt people who are old enough to have grandchildren have more grandchildren than they did when they were 25, that does not prove they vote in the interests of their grandchildren at their own expense. Nor is there any obligation to. This is sort of a silly tangent in a country where each person gets at least one vote. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/67 "2016-09-20T18:12:11Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, not at all. > > If you’re looking to see which generation is going to win/cost us this election, you might look at the **difference** between their support for the two candidates. > > Obviously there’s some blurring of generations here, but [this WaPo poll](http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf) from September 5-8 breaks down generational support as follows, with the numbers being Clinton-Trump-Johnson-Stein: > > \<40: 47-24-17-8 > 40-64: 43-47-7-0 > 65+: 50-45-3-0 > > So under-40 voters favor Clinton over Trump by 23 points, while 40+ voters are a wash. But _the kids_ are the ones who are throwing the election. Gotcha. No. That ignores the racial differences that are more powerful than age. Black people over 30 support Hillary more than Black people under 30. White people over 30 support Hillary more than white people under 30. Hispanic people over 30 support Hillary more than Hispanic people under 30. Asian people over 30 support Hillary more than Asian people under 30. It’s just that _all_ voters under 30 are much less likely to be white, so this difference is obscured. ETA: You’re also skewing it by making the dividing line at 40. Thirtysomethings are the best group Hillary’s got. But they are not classified in the “young” group I’m referring to here. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/68 "2016-09-20T18:20:34Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I see no one is acknowledging the fact that (when you take race out of it) 18-30yos are actually less likely to support Hillary than are those over 30. Cite? When I Google I get [QUOTE=[U.S. voter general election preferences | Pew Research Center](http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/)] Hillary Clinton holds a wide 60%-30% advantage over Trump among young voters (ages 18-29). [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/69 "2016-09-20T18:23:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Maximum age for voter rights is a pretty damn nutty idea. I suppose there are drawbacks to my proposal — and certainly passage is unlikely! — but is “pretty damn nutty idea” your idea of an intelligent rebuttal? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/70 "2016-09-20T18:25:35Z")
The cite is upthread, the 538 post. They have a graph showing that within every ethnic group, voters under 30 are less supportive of Hillary Clinton than voters over 30. And that’s even giving my case a bit of a handicap because I’m really talking about voters under 25 here. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/71 "2016-09-20T18:40:23Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No. That ignores the racial differences that are more powerful than age. Black people over 30 support Hillary more than Black people under 30. White people over 30 support Hillary more than white people under 30. Hispanic people over 30 support Hillary more than Hispanic people under 30. Asian people over 30 support Hillary more than Asian people under 30. It’s just that _all_ voters under 30 are much less likely to be white, so this difference is obscured. _What_ difference? Are you saying a particular racial subset of under-30s is to blame, or what? If not, then the racial differences don’t matter, do they? > [@](#): > > ETA: You’re also skewing it by making the dividing line at 40. Thirtysomethings are the best group Hillary’s got. But they are not classified in the “young” group I’m referring to here. OK, let’s look at the numbers at the link in your OP. According to their table, from a SurveyMonkey poll from Aug. 22-28: 18-24: Hillary +13 25-35: Hillary +22 36-51: Hillary +2 52-70: Trump +3 71+: Trump +7 Again, the kids are throwing the election, _how??_ ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/72 "2016-09-20T18:49:42Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The cite is upthread, the 538 post. They have a graph showing that within every ethnic group, voters under 30 are less supportive of Hillary Clinton than voters over 30. And that’s even giving my case a bit of a handicap because I’m really talking about voters under 25 here. The point of that graph is to show the _relative difference_ between _demographic_ groups. The 18-30 numbers come from a different survey than the overall numbers, so I don’t think it’s wise compare those numbers directly because the methodologies may be very different. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/73 "2016-09-20T18:53:07Z")
If I could post an image, I would do so. Go back to the link: > **[Unlike Their Parents, Black Millennials Aren’t A Lock For Clinton](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-millennials-arent-united-behind-clinton-like-their-elders/?ex_cid=538fb)** > > Graphics by Ella Koeze Jonathan Allen, 24, knows that he will cast a ballot in the presidential election, but he is a lot less certain about which box he’s goin… Look at the first graph. It does not feature Asian Americans as I wrongly remembered, but it shows that black voters under 30 are less supportive of Hillary than all blacks (which includes those under 30, so the actual difference is greater than what is shown), and that the same holds true for whites and Hispanics. > [@steronz](#): > > The point of that graph is to show the _relative difference_ between _demographic_ groups. The 18-30 numbers come from a different survey than the overall numbers, so I don’t think it’s wise compare those numbers directly because the methodologies may be very different. The people at 538 thought it was valid to compare them, hence the graph–and I tend to trust their expertise on the subject over most anyone else’s, including yours. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/74 "2016-09-20T18:56:23Z")
Think positively. Americans were so disillusioned by eight years of Bush the Younger they actually voted for a black guy. There’s a wonderful candidate waiting on the other side of two Trump terms. Bit of an excluded middle, but I think these millennials are in two camps which favor accelerationist thinking: 1. Privileged, so Trump winning won’t bother them too much. 2. Up to their eyeballs in student debt, can’t find a job, the entire political culture seems ridiculous, they don’t think normal candidates will do anything but maintain the status quo…oh, you’re saying Trump will burn it all to the ground? Let’s test that idea out. If only there were a lefty-lib sort who was popular with the base and independents and didn’t have a toxic cloud of scandal and corruption hanging over them (real or imagined) and who didn’t have a multi-decade blood feud with the right. Alas, unicorns like that don’t grow on trees. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The problem is that you see this as a team sport. It ain’t, and that’s a terribly misleading way to view politics. Right, sports are mere escapism. Politics is more like war. People’s lives are at stake. Especially for a powerful country like America. I’m guessing politics engenders such strong emotional reactions because it impacted individuals so strongly back in caveman days. If the wrong faction took hold you might be banished from the tribe or have your skull bashed in. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/75 "2016-09-20T18:58:52Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I suppose there are drawbacks to my proposal — and certainly passage is unlikely! — but is “pretty damn nutty idea” your idea of an intelligent rebuttal? Yes. It is a nutty idea. Even old people have the right to self governance. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/76 "2016-09-20T19:01:40Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Right, sports are mere escapism. Politics is more like war. People’s lives are at stake. Fair enough: I can go with that. Leaving aside the murky condition of the “war on terror”, the traditional, Geneva Convention idea of war is that if the enemy shoots at you and you capture them, you treat them well, let the Red Cross visit, and then let them go free when the war is over. If one of your own soldiers shoots at you or tries to sabotage your cause or simply refuses to fight, you may execute them on the battlefield, or if they are lucky they will just get thrown in the brig for years and years, long after the war is over. Getting undermined by your comrades is much more of a betrayal than being attacked by your enemies, and I don’t understand why this is even controversial. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/77 "2016-09-20T19:11:06Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Think positively. Americans were so disillusioned by eight years of Bush the Younger they actually voted for a black guy. There’s a wonderful candidate waiting on the other side of two Trump terms. Yabbut. You remember how, despite House and Senate majorities, Dubya wasn’t willing to privatize Social Security unless some Dems went along so he could claim it was bipartisan? Neither Trump nor Paul Ryan nor Mitch McConnell is like that. They’ll tear it all\* down, even if it means the Dems retake Congress in 2018 (which won’t happen, the Senate will be out of reach), knowing that it’s a hell of a lot harder to build it all back up again than to maintain what you’ve spent generations building up. \*All: who the hell knows how far they’d go? Obamacare? Dead. Dodd-Frank? Dead. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Dead. Obama’s executive orders combating climate change? Dead. Hopes of a sane Supreme Court in the next decade or so? Dead. Medicare? Voucherized. Social Security? Who knows? Minimum wage? Still at $7.25, assuming they don’t repeal the minimum wage entirely. And who knows what they’ll do to food stamps and stuff like that, but it won’t be good. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/78 "2016-09-20T19:13:23Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Fair enough: I can go with that. Leaving aside the murky condition of the “war on terror”, the traditional, Geneva Convention idea of war is that if the enemy shoots at you and you capture them, you treat them well, let the Red Cross visit, and then let them go free when the war is over. If one of your own soldiers shoots at you or tries to sabotage your cause or simply refuses to fight, you may execute them on the battlefield, or if they are lucky they will just get thrown in the brig for years and years, long after the war is over. > > Getting undermined by your comrades is much more of a betrayal than being attacked by your enemies, and I don’t understand why this is even controversial. Is any demographic truly owned by a party? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/79 "2016-09-20T19:17:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > How \*dare \*Hillary use the word “minority” (if she even does: this was actually Ashbrook’s usage, after all). Yup, that definitely makes her as bad as Trump. (In all seriousness, I didn’t realize “minority” had joined “Negro” and “colored” on the ash heap of rhetorical history. Which apparently also makes me a bad person, just as bad as Trump and the alt-right.) Seems like the attitude that would happen when one party takes a voting bloc for granted. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I already mostly explained this upthread, repeatedly. But let me put it another way: > > Show me another demographic group who strongly supported Obama in 2012, not only by percentages but with strong turnout, and who show indications of not coming out for Hillary this time (either not voting or going third party) despite continuing to express support for Obama, and I’ll criticize them equally strongly. Fair? So are those groups racist, or sexist, or both? That was the explanation I heard for people supporting Clinton and not Obama. Could it be that the two candidates are different? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423/80 "2016-09-20T19:23:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Getting undermined by your comrades is much more of a betrayal than being attacked by your enemies, and I don’t understand why this is even controversial. Your odd definition of ‘comrades’ and ‘enemies’ itself, I think. Regarding an age cohort as ‘comrades’ since they’re _more on your side than other age cohorts_, and having regarded them so, turning around and being more upset when they aren’t _even more on your side than they are_, is the troublesome notion here. They are what they are. They’re more for Hillary than Boomers or Xers or seniors, but the younger ones - under 25’s - aren’t as for Hillary as you’d like. You know what? They’re new to this ‘grownup’ business. Few of us were all that responsible or thoughtful when we were that age. (I damn sure wasn’t.) A smaller proportion of people in that age group vote than is true for other age groups, and they’ve typically (#notallkids) invested less thought in their choices. Expecting the kids to come through and save us, when we older folks can’t do the job ourselves, is a pretty foolish notion, if you ask me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voters-born-in-the-90s-need-to-get-a-clue/766423.md?page=5)