I posted a piece earlier where a Harvard Polling group makes the counter arguments that it's Millenials and Gen Z who are under polled because as DD notes traditional polling doesn't reach them. That seems plausible but I'll admit at this point I take all of the polls with some skepticism as there are likely flaws both ways.
There's no doubt in my mind the younger folks are harder to reach, however, they're also notoriously absent and fickle in elections. If they ever decided to punch their weight, they would make massive differences. But for now they're on the sideline.
LOL so now you are demonizing an entire Generation of folks I am Gen X and I did not benefit from cheap mortages right after WW2 I was born in the 60's. This why you and your ilk are just like the Trumpians you despise, you just love labeling a group of people and assigning them blame just to feel like you are superior. And its mainly white Gen Xers that voted for trump 61% millenials voted for trump at an overall rate of 41%. Different ‘generation’ definitions According to the standard definition, Generation X is people born from 1965–80—whereas the study Politico relies on to deem them the “Trumpiest” looks at the voting records of people born from 1956–80. First, it’s important to note that Politico never defines “Trumpiest,” although it’s clear from the context that the author merely means “the most Republican.” Using Trump’s name may draw more readers, but it misleads about the actual political measure being used, which is essentially party identification. To substantiate its so-called “Trumpiest” claim, Politico refers to a 2019 article by Columbia University scholars that examines the changing party identification of voters among different generations. But the definition of “generation” in that article varies substantially from the standard definition noted earlier, and the names it uses for each generation are also different. The article classifies people born from 1956–1980 as Reagan Conservatives. That 25-year period overlaps 16 years with the standard definition of Gen X (people born in 1965–1980), plus nine additional years (1956–1964) of the 19 years commonly referred to as the Boomer generation. The scholars made a deliberate choice to expand their definition of “generation” so it could reflect the long period of Republican presidential dominance. Thus, it would not be surprising if the Reagan Conservatives had the highest percentage of Republican Party identifiers. It was designed to be just that. Yet, even then, the chart on page 17 of the article shows that Reagan Conservatives were only a little more Republican than Eisenhower Republicans—for about ten years (1990 to 2000). And by 2010 until the end of the study, it was the latter group that was a tad “Trumpier” than the Reagan Conservatives. The Politico article seems not to have noticed the difference between the standard definition of generation and the one used by the scholars, even referring to the latter as Gen X, when neither the name nor the time frame were what the scholars specified. Excluding people of color To make Gen X look “Trumpiest,” it helps to leave out 39% of the generation (Pew, 3/16/18). The Politico article also ignores the limits of the scholars’ article, which very explicitly stated that the analysis was based on white voters only. Among people of color, the article stated, the model did not work so well. Politico acknowledges the results were based on white voters, but then seems to forget that caveat in the subsequent analysis, where the author continues to refer to the study’s findings as though they apply to all of Gen X. Yet, as of 2017, Pew reported that white people constituted just 61% of Gen X and 72% of Boomers. Among whites of this period, perhaps, can be found the most Republicans. But ignoring more than one third of adults who are non-white certainly undermines the more general conclusion. Here you can read the actual numbers yourself, https://fair.org/home/politico-paints-gen-x-as-trumpiest-generation-on-flimsiest-evidence/
Early voting is up in GA this time so hopefully we can avoid election deniers claiming steals. But taco bell is giving free tacos for the first stolen election.
LOL! There are not even a lot of undecided voters the Republicans have drawn a hard line in the sand. The unemployment numbers and the rise in wages say otherwise about Biden and Trump and then you throw in abortion and SS I am guessing that will get a lot off the fence.
Yes it's very hard to count on young voters which is why I'm skeptical of claims that the youth vote will tip things. That said in the material I posted they are pointing out that we are seeing a higher than average participation, actual votes, among younger voters.
Ya so primarily white Boomers disproportionately benefited from a era of being handed cheap mortgages like candy even with a menial job skillset right after WW2 and those property values quadrupled even after accounting for inflation that disproportionately benefited white genXers and their small business aspirations to the point where we are today where those white genX small business owners believe they are savants in business and completely self made even though they had benefits like being born into property ownership, the same property that multiplied in value as they grew up in said property/home. The MAGA boat tragedy of 2020 is a direct result of this phenomenon (wealthy white stupid people in congregation doing stupid things)
Things change and I think younger voters are starting to realize their votes actually matter they got rid of Trump and now abortion is a huge issue that would make you vote. I think Republicans have been a huge driver of the youth vote because they have been so blatant about things, and you can't just say both parties are the same and shrug it off. I also think youth voters have realized it's not that hard and their is. a certain amount of peer pressure that had not been there before. Going to be interesting to see the numbers.
Ok, what's your point here, and why do you keep trying to demonize Gen xer's? Why do you feel the need to always be othering different groups?
My point is clear if you read the content of @StupidMoniker comment I initially replied to about this subject matter. Here is the comment I replied to: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/2022-midterms.309561/page-75#post-14315535
You would so get triggered in any basic sociology class that examines "groups". Yes groups exist. And we can discuss the trends and patterns and how it happens.
If I was in a sociology class, I would not get triggered because I am in a sociology class and I know what will be talked about. Newsflash this thread and the others you do this in are not sociology classes, you neither discuss trends nor patterns, you just demonize groups. And on top of that when you do try to talk about trends and patterns you are wrong as I illustrated with you trying to tie Gen xers as being Trumpians. You are really terrible at this.
LOL. So now the qualifier is white, when you originally said genXers period? That's not what you originally said, and the answer is in the article I linked you to. What's number is considered general anyway?
I mean I was talking about the post WW2 housing boom which I routinely bring up in the D&D and explain how it always only disproportionately helped white families because of redlining for Black families and the fact that most non-white/black families that exist today came to the US after that housing boom(1970s-1990s where you see the Asian population boom). So yes when I bring up the housing boom post WW2 I'm almost always referring to it mostly only benefiting white families
There could be surprises in the governor races. In deep blue Oregon the Republican could win as the Democrat vote is split by a third party candidate who left the Democrats. In Deep Red Oklahoma the Democrat could win because of support from Native American tribes and also who got an endorsement from the previous Republican Governor. https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-elections-governor-poll-kevin-stitt-joy-hofmeister/41853682#
