Good writeup in Politico about how there’s really two political groups when it comes to Gen Z - those who were in high school or college before COVID, and those after. With pandemic-era restrictions a thing of the past for several years now it’ll be interesting to see how the 14-17 cohort ages into 2028
Good writeup in Politico about how there’s really two political groups when it comes to Gen Z - those who were in high school or college before COVID, and those after. With pandemic-era restrictions a thing of the past for several years now it’ll be interesting to see how the 14-17 cohort ages into 2028
GenZ is going to be a problem like their parents are (GenX). Per recent research they are the most susceptible to misinformation online while simultaneously the most online generation. They trust TikToks over exhaustive expert reports. Just sitting ducks for foreign OPs.
I think misinformation and issue salience is part of it (tik Tok jacked up coverage of Gaza in part because it was bad for Biden), but I think their values are just different in some fundamental ways that are poorly suited for the contemporary Dem coalition. The hyper-online stuff they're being fed is super materialistic and misogynistic. Those aren't inherently right wing worldviews, but they're really poorly suited to a party that had an old President and a woman VP running against a billionaire with a playboy history. I'm not sure how long it holds, especially if 2028 is like Wes Moore against Elise Stefanik or whatever.
Maybe it depends on perspective but in growing up in Berkeley, many of us by default were non-systematic and not always social media nuts.
Then again, the problem is that the internet and social media in general both have lax regulation. Also, as new technology continues to get introduced, so do the risks of cyber security and hacking.
There's a case for optimism here, as the newest voters will have Trump as their most relevant political experience, and while it's too soon to tell, early indicators are that it will probably not be a very positive one--just as his first term didn't exactly convert most youth of the time to his cause, and the economic and other impacts of his second could be even worse. The same happened under Biden which caused a rightward shift among the youngest voters, if perhaps not as sharp as some post election analysis said. Whether that's still relevant to them in 2028 and later will be interesting to see; it's possible that those who started voting in 2022-24 shift left.
And the newest voters won't have COVID as a particularly fresh or relevant memory, and the same is probably true for the gripes mentioned about excessive "progressive" censoriousness ("wokeism", cancel culture)' I actually agree with some of those complaints, though I hardly think they're a good reason to vote for Trump or any Republican. Biden-era inflation will likely also be a dim memory, especially if tariffs or other policies under Trump raise the cost of living even higher--something that younger voters may be especially hammered by.
And honestly, we have no idea how things will shake out once Trump is out of politics. A lot of his support is either soft (voters who swung his way in 2024 because of inflation) or cult (the folks who build shrines to him in their yards), and neither of those groups seem particularly wedded to the Republican Party en masse.
Perhaps I'm smoking hopium again, but I could easily see a big chunk of the former group swinging back toward Democrats as Trump inevitably crashes and burns, and a big chunk of the latter group withdrawing from politics.
I doubt it will be a large chunk that does either, but we don't need that.
Since 2000, all but one of our presidential elections has been relatively close. The sole exception is 2008 when Obama won in a modern landslide. Even that pales in comparison to the grand wins of years past.
The marginal house seat in 2024 was PA-07, which we lost by 1.01%. In 2022 in was IA-03, which we lost by 0.69%. In 2020 it was VA-07, which we won by 1.82%.
In the past three senate elections, to cover the entire body, the four closest seats needed to get us to 51 seats:
PA 2024, lost by 0.2%
WI 2022, 1%
NC 2020, 1.7%
NC 2022, 3%
Hopefully I didn't miss anything closer there; I did that one by eyeball.
For presidential elections the tipping point states were:
2000: FL, R+0.009
2004: OH, R+2.1
2008: CO, D+9
2012: CO, D+5.3
2016: WI, R+0.8
2020: WI, D+0.6
2024: PA, R+1.7
It would only require a relatively minimal drop off in republican support in the post-Trump era for things to swing back to our favor. If republicans lose 5% of their voters while we retain all of ours (or e.g. we lose 5% and they lose 10%), that's enough. That level of swing would take away every republican presidential win since HW Bush in 1988. It would have us in control of the house and senate and presidency today if it had occurred in 2020 and held true since then, although the senate would require a tie breaking VP — they would still have won NC's senate election in 2022 narrowly with a 5% loss in their voter base (a rough net loss of 2.5 points).
I also strongly suspect that a large part of Trump's support is turning out infrequent voters who don't show up when he is not on the ballot. We see this with the over performance of the Democrats the last two midterms and in the special and off year elections. However, I suspect that the high education suburban Never-Trump voters are going to stay with us.
It's just very difficult to see the "Trump coalition" (especially its most recent iteration) staying together post-Trump.
The next GOP nominee will almost certainly be a cosplay Trump, but those types of candidates have a tendency to go down like Lauren Boebert at the movies. Whatever animal magnetism Trump has does not appear to be easily transferrable.
Cena's politics probably wouldn't go over too well in the GOP. While he's generally avoided explicit endorsements, he's supported causes such as Black Lives Matter and Love Has No Labels.
He stated that he was "surprised" by Trump's 2024 victory. Whether he was surprised in a good, bad, or neutral way is unclear, but he ain't Hulk Hogan, Jake Paul, or Dana White.
I think it depends on who you meet but I meet plenty of Gen Z people at UC Berkeley, namely those who are undergraduates at the Haas School of Business, and they're quite open-minded and intelligent.
The best way to tackle the problem with Gen Z is to show empathy and understanding with what they deal with.
Agreed although UC Berkeley as a campus (including the student body) doesn't necessarily represent the City of Berkeley as a whole. Most students who attend UCB aren't from the city.
Oh sure. I just don’t assume by default that anyone who attends UC Berkeley, especially those in the more business-oriented Haas School of Business, are by default liberal. That’s not how I start conversations with any such students.
Anyone who goes to UC Berkeley can be liberal, moderate or even conservative in the end. However, the liberal-minded education they get certainly makes them well-informed and socially conscious.
Yes although besides what students decide for themselves about in their journey, they also can attend UC Berkeley for different reasons.
For international students, it's about the name, reputation and where it takes them in their careers. UCB is one of the best universities for math and science programs, namely at the graduate level. If a lot of students who attend such programs are from countries like China, India and Japan, it's most definitely about these ideal career prospects.
However, for degrees that are not business, math and science-based, yes, many undergraduate students have a tendency to be liberal-minded. They may go on different paths but their liberal views end up evolving post-graduation.
I'm sure a good portion are although if they're coming from countries like China, India and Japan, they are also looking at universities like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc, not exactly meant to be liberal utopias (although Stanford alumni include those such as current District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder, a Mission District renter and social justice-driven advocate).
I suppose going to UC Berkeley gives students from Asian countries good socially conscious education although regardless diversity is quite high at the campus and these graduate students already feel it on campus and the streets. Let's just say many are open-minded, which is in fact a trait of being liberal. :)
I went to high school and college during covid, most people my age I know aren’t die hard conservatives but are tired of modern progressive/“inclusive” messaging. But I think that’s because gen z is so cynical. Hopeful, progressive rhetoric comes across as hollow when no real action is being taken on big issues like climate change. I have noticed though that my friends will repeat things they saw on social media as facts without really thinking about it, which is concerning.
The reason little action is being taken on climate change is, mainly, that the country keeps electing Republicans. Though obviously Democrats could do better.
Climate change activists also could be a bit more practical or effective. In recent years they've often stumbled by advocating impractical and politically unworkable solutions. Demanding an end to beef consumption, air conditioning, or air travel is not going to get results. (And personally I am not going to part with any of those, so don't ask me to.)
And then there are groups like the "Sunrise Movement", purportedly devoted to addressing climate change, which has seemingly devolved into advocating whatever the leftist complaint of the moment is--i.e. last year they jumped on the bandwagon of declaring Gaza to be the most important issue on earth.
Climate change activists also don't know a whole lot about technological advances, particularly with carbon capturing technology, as well as scientific research that has been evolving for the last 10+ years on climate change.
As an example, Greta Thunberg means well but she's not exactly showing she's versed with such technological innovation, particularly with sustainable design. She trolled John Kerry when he was climate change czar during President Biden's presidency on him saying technology would save the world. Apparently she has failed to understand that Kerry, a long-time staunch pro-environment politician, has in climate change czar responsibilities worked proactively with nations to deal with this practically.
Also, we have had annual COP conferences for years now, most of which have set up agreements that all countries involved (including the U.S.) make these big leaps in combating climate change. All such agreements have packed in more gains than anything the Paris Agreement ever did.
After one such agreement at the COP26 conference was met, UN Secretary General António Guterres made a fool of himself on Twitter by saying to followers, "There's still time to act." I shook my head when he tweeted this because it sends the message that COP agreements are really symbolic when they actually aren't. The COP26 agreement was the most landmark environmental agreement since the Montreal Protocol.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has the best ideas on beating climate change and focuses on raising awareness on practically tackling it instead of scare tactics. He's said environmentalists are doing a terrible job at their agenda. He's focused on one goal, "Terminate pollution."
This is a broader issue than merely just climate change but the “professionalization” of activism and its dovetailing with social media has been disastrous for coherent strategies to actually combat the issues at hand rather than build TikTok clout
Yeah. In the case of UN Secretary António Guterres, his involvement in social media is validating what you're arguing.
Quite honestly, I stay clear of anything climate change related that is posted on social media because it only discusses the problems, not actual solutions. More fear mongering doesn't exactly help, especially when the goal of posts/videos on platforms like TikTok don't do anything more than getting likes and subscribes.
Climate change also consistently ranks low on voter priority list . . like sub 5%, sadly. The shift that appeared to be happening on the issue in the late 20teens has completely evaporated, thanks to slews of mis-info and the graduality of most CC effects resulting in shifting baseline syndrome as opposed to what should be collective alarm.
I think the main reason is because when it comes to voter concerns, they are looking at what is more immediately going to impact them:
-Inflation
-Cost of Living
-Healthcare
-And other directly related issues
Younger voters in their teens and 20's believe in climate change but they also need to pay off their student loans in college and also get gainful employment.
It would be low on mine, because my "COVID lesson" is that society can't even bind together to tolerate a sustained period of mild inconvenience to thwart an existential threat.
Society is never going to get the buy-in to do anything, because humanity is in sharp decline (and ultimately doomed).
No messaging would work as long as Democrats were perceived rightly or wrongly to be responsible for post Covid lockdowns, inflation, economy and the border crisis with a geriatric President who regularly went viral on Tiktok and reels due to his gaffes. Hopefully, the same happens to Trump now.
I think the write-up is good but it's based on a single poll which specifically only takes the opinion of "registered" Gen Z voters, most of whom did it for 2024, while Trump's approval among overall Gen Z has crashed more than Millennials and there are not many voters identifying lean R within those approval polls those don't differentiate between registered or unregistered. I feel that there was a huge Gen Z and hispanic swing against the status quo in this election but a lot of these post mortems are narrative based journalism.
Good writeup in Politico about how there’s really two political groups when it comes to Gen Z - those who were in high school or college before COVID, and those after. With pandemic-era restrictions a thing of the past for several years now it’ll be interesting to see how the 14-17 cohort ages into 2028
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/26/two-gen-zs-young-conservative-polling-00307375
GenZ is going to be a problem like their parents are (GenX). Per recent research they are the most susceptible to misinformation online while simultaneously the most online generation. They trust TikToks over exhaustive expert reports. Just sitting ducks for foreign OPs.
I think misinformation and issue salience is part of it (tik Tok jacked up coverage of Gaza in part because it was bad for Biden), but I think their values are just different in some fundamental ways that are poorly suited for the contemporary Dem coalition. The hyper-online stuff they're being fed is super materialistic and misogynistic. Those aren't inherently right wing worldviews, but they're really poorly suited to a party that had an old President and a woman VP running against a billionaire with a playboy history. I'm not sure how long it holds, especially if 2028 is like Wes Moore against Elise Stefanik or whatever.
Maybe it depends on perspective but in growing up in Berkeley, many of us by default were non-systematic and not always social media nuts.
Then again, the problem is that the internet and social media in general both have lax regulation. Also, as new technology continues to get introduced, so do the risks of cyber security and hacking.
There's a case for optimism here, as the newest voters will have Trump as their most relevant political experience, and while it's too soon to tell, early indicators are that it will probably not be a very positive one--just as his first term didn't exactly convert most youth of the time to his cause, and the economic and other impacts of his second could be even worse. The same happened under Biden which caused a rightward shift among the youngest voters, if perhaps not as sharp as some post election analysis said. Whether that's still relevant to them in 2028 and later will be interesting to see; it's possible that those who started voting in 2022-24 shift left.
And the newest voters won't have COVID as a particularly fresh or relevant memory, and the same is probably true for the gripes mentioned about excessive "progressive" censoriousness ("wokeism", cancel culture)' I actually agree with some of those complaints, though I hardly think they're a good reason to vote for Trump or any Republican. Biden-era inflation will likely also be a dim memory, especially if tariffs or other policies under Trump raise the cost of living even higher--something that younger voters may be especially hammered by.
And honestly, we have no idea how things will shake out once Trump is out of politics. A lot of his support is either soft (voters who swung his way in 2024 because of inflation) or cult (the folks who build shrines to him in their yards), and neither of those groups seem particularly wedded to the Republican Party en masse.
Perhaps I'm smoking hopium again, but I could easily see a big chunk of the former group swinging back toward Democrats as Trump inevitably crashes and burns, and a big chunk of the latter group withdrawing from politics.
I doubt it will be a large chunk that does either, but we don't need that.
Since 2000, all but one of our presidential elections has been relatively close. The sole exception is 2008 when Obama won in a modern landslide. Even that pales in comparison to the grand wins of years past.
The marginal house seat in 2024 was PA-07, which we lost by 1.01%. In 2022 in was IA-03, which we lost by 0.69%. In 2020 it was VA-07, which we won by 1.82%.
In the past three senate elections, to cover the entire body, the four closest seats needed to get us to 51 seats:
PA 2024, lost by 0.2%
WI 2022, 1%
NC 2020, 1.7%
NC 2022, 3%
Hopefully I didn't miss anything closer there; I did that one by eyeball.
For presidential elections the tipping point states were:
2000: FL, R+0.009
2004: OH, R+2.1
2008: CO, D+9
2012: CO, D+5.3
2016: WI, R+0.8
2020: WI, D+0.6
2024: PA, R+1.7
It would only require a relatively minimal drop off in republican support in the post-Trump era for things to swing back to our favor. If republicans lose 5% of their voters while we retain all of ours (or e.g. we lose 5% and they lose 10%), that's enough. That level of swing would take away every republican presidential win since HW Bush in 1988. It would have us in control of the house and senate and presidency today if it had occurred in 2020 and held true since then, although the senate would require a tie breaking VP — they would still have won NC's senate election in 2022 narrowly with a 5% loss in their voter base (a rough net loss of 2.5 points).
I also strongly suspect that a large part of Trump's support is turning out infrequent voters who don't show up when he is not on the ballot. We see this with the over performance of the Democrats the last two midterms and in the special and off year elections. However, I suspect that the high education suburban Never-Trump voters are going to stay with us.
It's just very difficult to see the "Trump coalition" (especially its most recent iteration) staying together post-Trump.
The next GOP nominee will almost certainly be a cosplay Trump, but those types of candidates have a tendency to go down like Lauren Boebert at the movies. Whatever animal magnetism Trump has does not appear to be easily transferrable.
Maybe their next ticket will be John Cena/Pat McAfee?
(excuse me while I go and vomit profusely)
Cena's politics probably wouldn't go over too well in the GOP. While he's generally avoided explicit endorsements, he's supported causes such as Black Lives Matter and Love Has No Labels.
He stated that he was "surprised" by Trump's 2024 victory. Whether he was surprised in a good, bad, or neutral way is unclear, but he ain't Hulk Hogan, Jake Paul, or Dana White.
Regarding Gen Z:
I think it depends on who you meet but I meet plenty of Gen Z people at UC Berkeley, namely those who are undergraduates at the Haas School of Business, and they're quite open-minded and intelligent.
The best way to tackle the problem with Gen Z is to show empathy and understanding with what they deal with.
I mean... Berkeley is one of the most liberal places in the country.
Agreed although UC Berkeley as a campus (including the student body) doesn't necessarily represent the City of Berkeley as a whole. Most students who attend UCB aren't from the city.
But the whole culture of the university is traditionally liberal if not leftist, and no-one has said that's changed.
Oh sure. I just don’t assume by default that anyone who attends UC Berkeley, especially those in the more business-oriented Haas School of Business, are by default liberal. That’s not how I start conversations with any such students.
Anyone who goes to UC Berkeley can be liberal, moderate or even conservative in the end. However, the liberal-minded education they get certainly makes them well-informed and socially conscious.
Right. But isn't there also some self-selection? I would think so.
Yes although besides what students decide for themselves about in their journey, they also can attend UC Berkeley for different reasons.
For international students, it's about the name, reputation and where it takes them in their careers. UCB is one of the best universities for math and science programs, namely at the graduate level. If a lot of students who attend such programs are from countries like China, India and Japan, it's most definitely about these ideal career prospects.
However, for degrees that are not business, math and science-based, yes, many undergraduate students have a tendency to be liberal-minded. They may go on different paths but their liberal views end up evolving post-graduation.
I'll bet most of the science students are liberal, too.
I'm sure a good portion are although if they're coming from countries like China, India and Japan, they are also looking at universities like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc, not exactly meant to be liberal utopias (although Stanford alumni include those such as current District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder, a Mission District renter and social justice-driven advocate).
I suppose going to UC Berkeley gives students from Asian countries good socially conscious education although regardless diversity is quite high at the campus and these graduate students already feel it on campus and the streets. Let's just say many are open-minded, which is in fact a trait of being liberal. :)
I went to high school and college during covid, most people my age I know aren’t die hard conservatives but are tired of modern progressive/“inclusive” messaging. But I think that’s because gen z is so cynical. Hopeful, progressive rhetoric comes across as hollow when no real action is being taken on big issues like climate change. I have noticed though that my friends will repeat things they saw on social media as facts without really thinking about it, which is concerning.
The reason little action is being taken on climate change is, mainly, that the country keeps electing Republicans. Though obviously Democrats could do better.
Climate change activists also could be a bit more practical or effective. In recent years they've often stumbled by advocating impractical and politically unworkable solutions. Demanding an end to beef consumption, air conditioning, or air travel is not going to get results. (And personally I am not going to part with any of those, so don't ask me to.)
And then there are groups like the "Sunrise Movement", purportedly devoted to addressing climate change, which has seemingly devolved into advocating whatever the leftist complaint of the moment is--i.e. last year they jumped on the bandwagon of declaring Gaza to be the most important issue on earth.
Climate change activists also don't know a whole lot about technological advances, particularly with carbon capturing technology, as well as scientific research that has been evolving for the last 10+ years on climate change.
As an example, Greta Thunberg means well but she's not exactly showing she's versed with such technological innovation, particularly with sustainable design. She trolled John Kerry when he was climate change czar during President Biden's presidency on him saying technology would save the world. Apparently she has failed to understand that Kerry, a long-time staunch pro-environment politician, has in climate change czar responsibilities worked proactively with nations to deal with this practically.
Also, we have had annual COP conferences for years now, most of which have set up agreements that all countries involved (including the U.S.) make these big leaps in combating climate change. All such agreements have packed in more gains than anything the Paris Agreement ever did.
After one such agreement at the COP26 conference was met, UN Secretary General António Guterres made a fool of himself on Twitter by saying to followers, "There's still time to act." I shook my head when he tweeted this because it sends the message that COP agreements are really symbolic when they actually aren't. The COP26 agreement was the most landmark environmental agreement since the Montreal Protocol.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has the best ideas on beating climate change and focuses on raising awareness on practically tackling it instead of scare tactics. He's said environmentalists are doing a terrible job at their agenda. He's focused on one goal, "Terminate pollution."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpy4xBftFuY
This is a broader issue than merely just climate change but the “professionalization” of activism and its dovetailing with social media has been disastrous for coherent strategies to actually combat the issues at hand rather than build TikTok clout
100% agreed. The ecosystem has created a perverse incentive to be "bolder" than the pack, to get Very Online support.
Which in turn can make normies tune out, decide nothing can really be done.
Yeah. In the case of UN Secretary António Guterres, his involvement in social media is validating what you're arguing.
Quite honestly, I stay clear of anything climate change related that is posted on social media because it only discusses the problems, not actual solutions. More fear mongering doesn't exactly help, especially when the goal of posts/videos on platforms like TikTok don't do anything more than getting likes and subscribes.
Climate change also consistently ranks low on voter priority list . . like sub 5%, sadly. The shift that appeared to be happening on the issue in the late 20teens has completely evaporated, thanks to slews of mis-info and the graduality of most CC effects resulting in shifting baseline syndrome as opposed to what should be collective alarm.
COVID dominating everything for two years bandwidth wise, then Ukraine/Gaza, did not help
I think the main reason is because when it comes to voter concerns, they are looking at what is more immediately going to impact them:
-Inflation
-Cost of Living
-Healthcare
-And other directly related issues
Younger voters in their teens and 20's believe in climate change but they also need to pay off their student loans in college and also get gainful employment.
It would be low on mine, because my "COVID lesson" is that society can't even bind together to tolerate a sustained period of mild inconvenience to thwart an existential threat.
Society is never going to get the buy-in to do anything, because humanity is in sharp decline (and ultimately doomed).
No messaging would work as long as Democrats were perceived rightly or wrongly to be responsible for post Covid lockdowns, inflation, economy and the border crisis with a geriatric President who regularly went viral on Tiktok and reels due to his gaffes. Hopefully, the same happens to Trump now.
I think the write-up is good but it's based on a single poll which specifically only takes the opinion of "registered" Gen Z voters, most of whom did it for 2024, while Trump's approval among overall Gen Z has crashed more than Millennials and there are not many voters identifying lean R within those approval polls those don't differentiate between registered or unregistered. I feel that there was a huge Gen Z and hispanic swing against the status quo in this election but a lot of these post mortems are narrative based journalism.