winograd

Yesterday, Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, of NDN fame, presented the findings of an online poll they conducted from June 1-7. The report, "The Changing Coalitions of 21st Century America," explores how the parties are adapting to rapidly changing demographics in America.

The data affirms what we have been noting for some time now.

While most Americans continue to favor activist government focused on promoting economic equality, those components of the electorate that identify most strongly with the Democratic Party are much more likely to want to see that approach reflected in legislation on such issues as health care, education, and off shore drilling. In addition, while both party's coalitions want action on the economy and financial reform, only major groups within the GOP coalition are strongly concerned with reducing government spending and the federal debt. These deeply felt differences are likely to be reflected in the 2010 midterm elections campaigns and on Capitol Hill in the years ahead.

Democrats retain a clear lead in both party identification and the congressional generic ballot that is virtually unchanged from the lead they held in the project's first survey conducted in February 2010. The core groups of the Democratic Party's new coalition - Millennials, African-Americans, Hispanics - remain solidly Democratic in both their partisan identifications and vote intentions, but the current lack of political intensity among these Democratic groups give Republicans an opening to make gains in 2010.

In short: the Democratic coalition has the demographic trends in their favor, but whether or not they can effectively mobilize these voters in a hostile environment is the big question.

Morley and Mike's presentation can be found here and the executive summary is here.

Over the last several months, I have noticed a discrepancy emerging among commentators regarding whether or not Millennials prefer suburban or urban living. Examining such a conflict is important given the size and growing political influence of the Millennial generation in today's society.

In their most recent piece, Morley Winograd and Michael Hais use the Brookings Institution's "State of Metropolitan America" report and some polling conducted for thinktank NDN to argue that as the Millennial generation comes of age, America will move to an exclusively suburban society.

While suburban living was once seen as the almost exclusive preserve of the white upper-middle class, a majority of all major American racial and ethnic groups now live in suburbia, according to the newest report on the state of metropolitan America from the Brookings Institute. Slightly more than half of African-Americans now live in large metropolitan suburbs, as do 59% of Hispanics, almost 62% of Asian-Americans, and 78% of whites. As a result the country is closer than ever to achieving a goal that many thought would never be achieved—city/suburban racial/ethnic integration. This is particularly so in the faster growing metropolitan areas of the South and West.

The trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. A majority of Millennials live in the suburbs and 43% of them, a portion higher than for any other generation, describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live.”

Winograd and Hais use this to further argue that policymakers and developers should not resist this movement to the suburbs, but instead embrace it by passing legislation that safeguards our children, strengthens schools, and brings jobs to the suburbs. In their mind, this would play to the heart of the 21st Century electorate.

A recent piece in the Atlantic by Christopher Leinberger contradicts Winograd and Hais's claim, arguing for better urban transit systems and walkable neighborhoods. Leinberger explains that with housing's ability to lead us out of recessions, one should note the gradual increase in lost values as one moves away from urban centers.

But housing hasn’t cratered everywhere. According to Stan Humphries, the chief economist of Zillow, an online housing-research firm, if you plot changes in home values within a typical metro region on a satellite map, the result “looks like an archery target, with the outlying areas having experienced substantially higher total declines in home values” than areas closer to the central city.

Zillow data for metropolitan Washington, D.C., for instance, shows that housing prices on average have declined 33 percent since the peak. But this average masks big differences. In densely built inner suburbs, like Arlington, Virginia, and in the walkable, urban neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, prices typically dropped about 20 percent. Housing on the suburban fringe, on the other hand, lost about half its value. Many exurban homeowners who had purchased or refinanced in the mid-2000s are now well underwater.

Leinberger uses this data to make the claim that policymakers and developers should instead focus on using transit and biking infrastructure to re-develop urban neighborhoods into walkable, navigable areas.

Urban-style housing in walkable neighborhoods—including those in the inner suburbs—is what’s in demand today. And for a variety of reasons, that demand will intensify in the coming years. Only by serving it can the country kick-start growth in an enormous and essential part of the economy.

Yet the creation of new, attractive urban spaces is slow and difficult, and becomes all but impossible without substantial new infrastructure. Most of all, it relies on good transit options—especially rail links—around which walkable neighborhoods can develop. Rail, biking, and walking infrastructure is the backbone of urban development, and as a country we’ve for the most part neglected to build it in recent decades, in favor of new roads for new suburbs farther and farther away from metropolitan hubs. To support growth in the next decade, we need to change that dynamic—and nourish our walkable urban spaces and neighborhoods. Complicating matters, in these cash-strapped times we need to find a way to do so on the cheap.

I've argued for something similar to Leinberger's vision in the past. Part of the appeal of Leinberger's contention is that it aligns with Millennial values. Urban living leads to leaving less of a carbon footprint and a more sustainable lifestyle. Not only this, but real estate surveys yield data disputing the numbers cited by Winograd and Hais above. 75 percent of Millennials actually prefer to live in an urban core, emphasizing the importance of convenience, connectivity, and "environment" when selecting a place to live. Though Winograd and Hais argue that organizers and politicians should go to the suburbs to find Millennial values, Leinberger's piece and the accompanying data supports a continued investment in re-developing urban areas. Such a focus is not mutually exclusive from good schools and the other quality of life issues Winograd and Hais discuss.

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais have an interesting post up at their blog, Millennial Makeover. Winograd and Hais argue that MTV is finally understanding that the youth of today look and act nothing like the youth of yesteryear, er- 1981.

The network, long known for cynical and vapid content, has suddenly understood the importance of being earnest. Booze and bikinis are out. Do-good singers and hard-working art students are in.

MTV acknowledged that its programming had become out of step with the progressive, service-oriented values of today's youth, the Millennial Generation. "It was very clear we were at one of those transformational moments, when this new generation of Millennials [born between 1982 and 2003] were demanding a new MTV," a channel executive explained.

Winograd and Hais examine the differences between the Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials through the lens of movies that were popular during the time period in which each generation came of age. (The Devil Wears Prada is a far cry from The Graduate.)

The point Winograd and Hais make and that I've echoed for a few months now is that the Republican Party won't have a presence in national politics for decades to come unless it stops seeing youth as inconsequential and unworthy of a long-term investment; such a view restricts the GOP from understanding the general attitudes and values inherent in Millennials, who will continue to deliver a major shock to the political process over the next twenty years. And while this GOP extinction might seem great for progressive activists like us, a lack of Republican competition would actually relieve the pressure on Democrats to continue funding and supporting innovative youth outreach programs well into the future.

We're running out of ways to say it. But some poll results released by Democracy Corps this week yield perilous signs for the GOP's relevance to today's youth. The poll analysis diagnoses the problem.

Republicans struggle among young people for a very specific reason. At a time when young people are paying close attention to politics and when so many are struggling economically, even more so than older generations, the Republicans simply do not speak to the reality of their lives or to the issues important to them. This perception stands in marked contrast to their reaction to Barack Obama. Nationally, voters’ opinion of the President may have cooled slightly—and inevitably—in recent weeks, but among younger voters, he has never been more popular. They strongly support his economic policy and are confident that he will make a difference in their lives.

As Winograd and Hais might say it, the GOP is stuck in the idealist era, when the nation could afford to entertain a divided government. In an idealist era, "bipartisanship" means finding the lowest common denominator between two ideological extremes. With the way Washington is, that process takes a while. And with voters handing the executive branch to one party and the legislative branch to the other over decades of time, they put their seal of approval on this arrangement. Until now.

But in 2008, America moved to a new political era and everything changed, including the meaning of bipartisanship, as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression pushed the country into another civic era. In this environment, the American public, which had preferred divided government during the previous idealist era, now endorses unified government. A CNN survey conducted immediately after the 2008 general election indicated that a clear majority (59%) favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38 percent said that one-party rule was a bad idea. The public used a clearly civic era rationale to explain its changed attitude, telling Wall Street Journal pollsters that when the same party controls both the presidency and Congress, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done." A recent CBS/New York Times survey confirmed the desire for decisive action across the institutional lines of a newly unified government. A clear majority (56%) wants President Obama to pursue the policies he promised in the campaign rather than working in a bipartisan way with Republicans (39%). By contrast, an even larger majority (79%) wants congressional Republicans to work in a bipartisan way with the President rather than sticking to Republican policies.

What do young voters have to do with this? Well, they form the backbone of the new civic era. From a Winograd and Hais Washington Post op-ed piece in February 2008:

Unlike the young baby boomers, millennials want to strengthen the political system, not tear it down. According to a study last year by the Pew Research Center, most millennials (64 percent) disagree that the federal government is wasteful and inefficient, while most older Americans (58 percent) think it is. A 2006 survey by Frank N. Magid Associates indicated that millennials are more likely than older generations to believe that politicians care what people think and are more concerned with the good of the country than of their political party.

It also showed that millennials, more than their elders, believe that U.S. political institutions will deal effectively with concerns the nation will face in the future.

Given the public's disapproval of both Congress and President Bush, we're going to need all the optimism and change we can generate to overcome those challenges. Luckily, the millennial generation, like its GI generation forebears, is arriving right on time to deliver just what America needs.

In the Democracy Corps poll, we see that today's youth strongly agree with the president on issues, most importantly, his economic stimulus plan.

Young people support the stimulus package convincingly (68 percent favor, 20 percent oppose) and in much higher numbers than older Americans. Young people doing well financially are only marginally less likely to support the plan (65 percent favor) than young people overall and even among Republicans, only 47 percent oppose.

Young people believe the stimulus plan will work, not only in improving the economy overall, but also in improving their own lives in particular. A 71 percent majority describe themselves as confident the stimulus plan will work overall, 68 percent are confident it will improve their own situation, including 68 percent of those who describe their personal economic situation as just fair or poor.

We also learn that youth, like never before, are closely watching the events in Washington.

Young people are paying attention to Washington. Nearly half (45 percent) of young people watched the President’s prime time address on February 24th and 75 percent describe themselves as following the Obama administration closely. Even among young people who are not registered to vote, a 60 percent majority say they have watched the Administration carefully.

And what are Millennials, who strongly support President Obama, watching so closely?

The above is a perfect example of a Republican Party that is stuck on sideshows from the idealist era, and can't problem-solve or make a legitimate effort to pursue the common good in its politics. No figures were offered in their budget proposal; instead, the GOP leadership attacked the other side.

As long as young people and their opinions are ignored, no amount of tweeting or other desperate attempts to use technology will matter. The GOP treats youth as irrelevant, and young voters consequently view Republicans the same way.

A few things to check out this evening...

• Barack Obama has created an online community, Renew America Together, linking those serving their respective communities.
• Winograd and Hais give their take on Renew America Together, calling it a "down payment to Millennials."
• McClatchy Newspapers looks at whether the torch has been passed again with Obama's victory.
• Many commentators are arguing that the GOP needs to step up their use of technology to court the youth vote. Spurning C-SPAN isn't a good start.
• Obama, meanwhile, won't let go of his BlackBerry.
• Want a job with the Obama administration? An ex-Clinton appointee gives you some tips.
• The Times profiles Pittsburgh's resurgence after it experienced its own recession a few decades ahead of the rest of the country.
• Campus Progress interviews Kathy Dahlkemper, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylania's Third District, who recently defeated Republican incumbent Phil English. Dahlkemper talks about youth involvement and has a pretty interesting story (I live in the Third District and had an opportunity to talk with Dahlkemper at one of the college meetings she references -- a good person for this district and for young people).
• mcjoan at DailyKos examines the national parks as an opportunity for job creation, a la the Civilian Conservation Corps in the '30s.
• Blagojevich will swear in the Illinois State Senate, which will then promptly put the governor on trial. What great political theater, eh?