Generation Z is the group after the Millennials. It’s actually a mixed bag when it comes to their politics compared to previous generations. I don’t consider though it should be noted that Bernie Sanders performed better against the entire field of 2016 candidates among high school students than anyone, with Trump coming in second.

The data I see is that they trend libertarian, and any data that shows Trump “coming in second” against anybody should be carefully viewed, as it may be a personal indictment regarding Trump, not a stamp of approval of anyone else, in my view.

If the data you cite is accurate, the message that can be gleaned is that they will be strong anti-establishment types. What direction that takes them politically is yet to be determined.

Margins in politics can be razor thin. 14% vs. 10% is a significant difference.

Not if you look at the overall historical trends on these questions, which go back some 30 years, which show that overt racism in general is decreasing at a very rapid pace. That same question is polling less than half than it did just two decades ago. And, on other similar questions, the Dems polled equal to the GOP, or perhaps the GOP was only a point larger.

They’re not entirely uncorrelated.

No, they’re not, but they’re far more correlated with age. The reason questions such as these have shown racist attitudes dropping by 50% over the last two decades is not that racist America is engaging in self-reflection and changing its tune; it’s that the racists are dying out. From the survey data I read, I don’t think more than 6%-8% of America currently holds overtly racist views at this point in time; and it would not surprise me in the least to find that the average age of those is elderly.

Obviously, systemic and subconcious racism is another matter entirely.

It’s certainly most politicians, but it isn’t as bad as 95% (yet).

Ok, maybe it’s only 90%. :-)

Probably so. It remains to be seen whether these politicians can be primaried from the left. The 2018 election will be very telling on that front, because there are a lot of people gearing up to challenge neoliberal, establishment Democrats.

Good luck with that. The first round of Tea Party candidates were ninnies. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, then that idiot Todd Akin in 2012. The GOP map was beneficial to them in both 2010 and 2012, and it took until 2014 to win the Senate because “activists” got “their candidate” through the primaries, but “their candidate” did not have the political gravitas to seal the deal in the general.

I’m a radical, not a liberal. We’re only stuck in the maze because we accept the maze as an immutable reality, but it isn’t.

I’m 62, and grew up when people were challenging the status quo from the left in a far stronger fashion than they were today. Then, those radicals either became college professors or got MBAs and voted for Reagan.

The entrenchment of the “status quo” as far as the political and economic establishment is concerned is essentially unchanged from the first day I cast a vote. All we’ve done is nibbled around the edges a bit on certain issues. We are a fairer society now. We are a cleaner society now. We are more economically efficient than we were. But economic inequality has been rising on almost a straight line since the late 1960’s. So we’ve addressed several symptoms, but not the overall ailment.

In a nation the economic and bureaucratic size of the US, overall radical political change is impossible, and if it WERE to occur, the medicine could very well be worse than the disease.

What CAN happen is that people can make change occur in certain key areas against the establishment if they are united in doing so. The problem is that the US left is so diverse in its ‘priorities’ that they are unable to apply themselves to one single area in a unified fashion. For example, we would probably agree that income inequality and climate change are rather large problems that need to be addressed. However, you probably only have the political muscle to fix one of them.


Here’s the lesson of history: political activism is, for the most part, a sport of the young. After household formation occurs, and which is occurring NOW for the millenials (later than normal, due to the recession), priorities shift from the political to the personal. You get fewer people at rallies because they are at their kid’s soccer games. There’s strong data coming out now showing how quickly the movement of millenials into the cities has reversed, and how the suburbs are now growing again as millenial households form.

As part of this trending, many will be “mugged by reality” and change their views from collectivistic to individualistic, leading them to support more conservative economic views that emphasize keeping money in their own pockets rather than the government’s.

And much Gen Z seems to already BE in that “individualistic” camp.

This has all happened before, and will all happen again. It’s a pendulum, not a progression. Politics never moves in a straight, uninterrupted line towards any political pole.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.