Young Republicans Are "Defecting" from the GOP. NewsWire

NEWSWIRE: 4/8/19

• A new analysis shows that one-third of U.S. adults who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. “Defections” from the GOP were most common among younger Millennial voters, who were put off by Trump’s divisive rhetoric and his protectionist stance on immigration and trade. (The New York Times)
• NH: In 2012, with America still suffering in the backwash of the GFC and "Tea Party" radicalism beginning to emerge in the rural red zone, the GOP chose perhaps the worst possible candidate to harness this new mood: Mitt Romney. While the Bain Capital tycoon came across as smart, articulate, and decent, he also seemed utterly out of touch with the tribulations of ordinary Americans. Obama probably would have beaten any GOP opponent in 2012. But Mitt raised the odds-against. In 2016, the GOP fatefully chose to move a very different and more populist direction with Donald Trump. The upside of that choice was that year's GOP presidential victory. The downside was the demoralizing GOP defeat in 2018--and the parallel move of the Democratic leadership toward populism on the left.
• According to exit polls, the most severe losses experienced by the GOP in 2018 were among women, the young, and the educated. (See: “The 2018 Midterms: A Tale of Two Americas.”) To track the exact progression over time of exit-poll partisanship by age, take a look at the first chart below. But how exactly has the party shifted overall since 2012? This article summarizes evidence from a customized survey of 64,000 validated American voters across all three elections to find out. It has tracked voters over time and has identified which Romney voters later voted for Trump (versus Clinton); and then, in 2018, which voted for a GOP candidate (versus a Democrat). 
• The results make clear that the voters who fled the GOP were not randomly distributed across the population. The exodus--once again--tended to be disproportionately female, educated, and young. (See second chart below.) One-third of Romney voters under age 40 in 2012 did not vote for Trump in 2016. And another 16% of Trump voters under age 40 did not vote Republican in 2018. What two issues most predicted which voters who stayed with the GOP? A hard line on immigration and a hard line on global trade agreements--issues which show a huge age gap. Consider this: 4% of Romney-to-Trump voters were under 30 years old in 2016. In contrast, 18% of Romney-to-Clinton voters were under 30, as were 21% of Romney-to-nonvoters. Yes, that's a serious youth hemorrhage.
• A post-2016 election survey asked over 1,300 Republican voters which attracted them more: Donald Trump or the Republican Party. As always with such questions, people are much more likely to say they are attracted to a person rather than to a party. But here again the differences by age are notable (see third chart below). Boomer and Silent voters were the most likely to say they strongly prefer Donald Trump. Millennial voters were the most likely to say they prefer the Republican Party. No other demographic characteristic (income, race, or gender) showed a similar divide.

• A new piece explores the historic decline in the Hispanic-American birthrate, which plummeted 31% from 2007 to 2017. In essence, Hispanic-American Millennial women are “catching up” to their non-Hispanic peers, prioritizing education and career over family formation. (The New York Times)
• NH: The biggest drivers behind America's recent fertility decline affect all demographic groups. (See: "Is the U.S. Fertility Decline Permanent?") These include a tough youth economy, delayed marriage, and rising risk aversion among childbearing-age Millennials. But some drivers are specific to certain groups. We see, for example, a rising gap between (higher) rural and (lower) urban fertility rates--and this matters because young adults have been increasingly migrating into urban areas. We also see a surprisingly steep decline in the fertility of Millennial Hispanics, which is the subject of this article.
• Back in 2007, the Hispanic gross birthrate (97.4 per 1,000 women age 15-45) was 41% higher than the U.S. average. By 2017, it was only 12% higher. This decline, according to the Institute for Family Studies, resulted in 19% fewer Hispanic births in 2016 than would have been the case if the birthrate had stayed unchanged since 2006.
• Several forces are conspiring to produce this decline. Most importantly, the Great Recession did a lot more to suppress earnings and job growth among U.S. Hispanics than among Americans of other races. This economic hardship has been directly linked to the birth decline among U.S. Hispanics--and also to a decline in net immigration from Latin America. The decline in immigration, in turn, translates into a declining share of young Hispanic women who are immigrants and a growing share who are second- or third-generation U.S. residents. Growing up in America with English as a native language, these women acquire attitudes and life goals that are increasingly aligned with their Millennial peers. As this article explains, second-generation Hispanic Millennials are being urged by their parents to choose education and career development over early baby making. And as for their parents? They are more likely to be immigrants. But keep in mind, even in Latin America fertility rates are falling steadily. The U.N. Population Division expects Mexico to drop below the replacement rate (TFR of 2.1) by the year 2020.

• 30- to 49-year-olds are the most pessimistic about the future of Social Security, with 52% of this group expecting to receive no benefits at all. Few Americans, young or old, are optimistic about the nation’s (or their own) financial future over the next 30 years, with a majority predicting reduced benefits, more expensive health care, and a weaker economy. (Pew Research Center)
• NH: If you're feeling depressed today or just a bit "at risk," I would advise you to stay away from this report. It's one of Pew's big in-depth surveys. It's fascinating, but it's also relentlessly downbeat. Pew basically asks adults where they see America thirty years from now in the year 2050. The bottom-line answer: They don't see much to cheer about. By 60% to 31%, they see America declining in stature on the world stage. By 73% to 19%, they see a widening gap between haves and have-nots. By 65% to 26%, they see growing political polarization. By a 2-to-1 margin, they see the average family's standard of living getting worse. Most even say it will get worse for their children. Almost across the board, whites and the college-educated are the most pessimistic.
• Will our political leaders be able to meet these challenges? Fully 48% are "very worried" that they will not. Another 39% are "fairly worried." (Only 2% are "not worried at all." Wow, who are those people?) Nearly everyone agrees that science and technology will have a positive impact on solving America's problems. But 48% say automation has thus far hurt American workers (only 22% say it has helped). And nearly everyone agrees that automation will worsen economic inequality.
• When told that America by 2050 will have more people over age 65 than under age 18, most people say (56% to 17%) that this is "bad for America." In fact, 42% say Social Security will provide no benefits when they retire (52% of Xers say this). And 83% say it is probable or certain that most Americans will have to work into their 70s to get by. When told that America by 2050 will be majority nonwhite or Hispanic, most respondents are OK with this overall. But when asked specifically whether it will lead to more conflicts between racial groups, respondents agreed (46% to 26%) on "more conflicts." Asked whether a majority nonwhite population will weaken or strengthen American customs and values, 38% said weaken and 30% said strengthen.
• Oh, and for those of you interested in the partisan implications, here's a bit of sobering news for the Republican leadership. When asked whether, over the next 30 years, you are worried that the federal government will do "too little" or get "too involved" in trying to address the nation's challenges, 60% said they worried about too little versus 39% who worried about too involved. When asked what should be the country's top government spending priority over the next 30 years, "affordable health care for all" was the overwhelming winner: 68% of Americans said this is their top choice. That includes 83% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans.

• The KonMari trend is sparking joy for all kinds of retailers that are helping fans tidy up. Sellers of storage materials and secondhand apparel are seeing double-digit increases in sales and donations as uncluttering goes from a seasonal chore to a lifestyle. (Advertising Age)
• NH: Go ahead and grab, one by one, each bit of clutter in your house. As you do, ask yourself, does this thing bring you joy? If the answer is no, thank that thing for its service--and then throw it out. This, in a nutshell, is the advice of Marie Kondo, whose bestselling book and Netflix show have recently riveted the attention of millions of Americans. The beauty of the KonMari fad is that it appeals to all generations. Boomers can understand it in a sort of right-brained Zen way: I want to align my environment to my own soul-energy. It's Feng Shui for the interior of their McMansions. Millennials, on the other hand, can think of it as a left-brained engine of functional minimalism: How can I strip my world down to just the necessities so that I can actually get by in Tiny House Nation? (See: “Did You Know? The Big Business of Tidying Up.)”
• Predictably, as the Ad Age author points out, sales are burgeoning at retailers like The Container Store and at resalers like ThredUp. Ditto, to some degree, for the big home improvers like Home Depot or Lowe's. It turns out you have to buy stuff in order to organize stuff. And then, to be sure, you have to get rid of a lot of the stuff you already have. What the author does not point out are all the downside implications. With the rise of the sharing economy (see: "Why Own What You Can Rent?") and the Millennial fascination with experiences (see: "The Immaterial World"), we have long predicted an extended headwind for apparel and consumer durables. Here's one more reason to be pessimistic. Who wants to buy a new thing when everybody's getting rid of their old things?
• As more retirees put their beloved big homes on the market, they’re finding that few younger people want or can afford to buy them. Boomers’ homes are like the crystal goblets and china sets they’re also struggling to pass down: a reflection of different tastes, priorities, and bank balances compared to younger generations. (The Wall Street Journal)
• NH: You can already see this happening. (See: “Boomers Worry About Selling Large Homes.”) Near urban centers where the prices of small downtown and inner-suburban units are rising smartly, the prices of spacious and more expensive homes in the exurbs are not seeing the same climb. In regions dominated by seniors--like Scottsdale, AZ, or Asheville, NC--owners today are often selling their large properties at a loss. The gap in price trends is fundamentally driven by the mismatch between the location, style, and price of housing preferred by the old and by the young. Because what seniors are vacating is not what young adults are usually looking for, prices are adjusting in search of a new equilibrium. That gap is widened by the large size of the Boom Generation that is selling relative to the Millennial Generation that is starting to buy. It also matters that a rising share of Millennials are marrying late, are doubling up with others, and can't afford to pay the same price for their parents'  homes as their parents pay for each other's homes. (See: "How Togetherness is Killing the Housing Market.")
• Unanswered by this article is the question of timing: Exactly when will Boomers be selling their large homes? One recent Fannie Mae study concludes--rightly, IMO--that most of this shift has yet to occur. These researchers note that homeownership rates even in the oldest (75+) age brackets are still rising (see first chart below) and that the typical Boomer is "aging in place." Nonetheless, the sheer size of the Boomers, combined with the inevitable decline in Boomer homeowners once they move past age 75 (due more to death than to moving), will cause a growing tide of big-house "for sale" signs throughout the 2020s. The first large 1946 Boomer birth cohort reaches age 75 in 2021. In the late 2020s and early 2030s, these sales will reach their peak. (See second chart below.)
• In 2030, the 50-something midlife buyer of today's big Boomer home will be a late-wave, baby-bust Xer born in the 1970s. Will that buyer have the desire, means, or opportunity to buy such a home at anything close to today's prices? And will there be enough such buyers?

• New Arizona Cardinals head coach Kliff Kingsbury plans to implement cellphone breaks in player meetings. As a former collegiate coach, Kingsbury has seen the impact of smartphone addiction firsthand: “You start to see kind of hands twitching and legs shaking, and you know they need to get that social media fix.” (ESPN)
• NH: It is OK to acknowledge that young athletes have different means of communicating and staying in touch with each other. It is not OK--if you want championship performance--to allow casual lifestyle addictions to distract the attention of young people who depend on coaches to keep them on task. Arizona ended last season 3-13-0. It had the worst offense in the NFL. I get it. Kingsbury (age 40) is a young coach who wants his players to like him. But if he expects his team to become a contender next year without total focus and total discipline, he's dreaming.
• Kingsbury (last year coach of Texas Tech's football team) should waste no time getting on the phone with Chris Beard--this year's coach of the Texas Tech basketball team going to Monday's national championship game against Virginia. What accounts for the head-spinning turnaround in the record of Beard's team this year? As Beard could explain to Kingsbury, one policy that hugely helped was a total ban on social media during all team activities and every night that the team is on the road. Surprisingly, the idea of a ban came not from Beard himself but from one of the players, 6'9" center Norense Odiase. When asked about the ban, Odiase had this advice for young athletes: “Your phone will always be there, your friends will always be there, notifications, all that stuff, will always be there in the morning. Just get some rest.” Sometimes it's that simple: Rest and focus, and you too can throttle the competition with your superior performance (in Texas Tech's case, with their suffocating defense) and win championships.
• Contributor Matthew Walther writes that Xer presidential candidate Andrew Yang “is Ross Perot for Millennials.” Yang’s pragmatic, problem-solving approach could appeal to young voters who want solutions rather than vague promises of “change”—much like how Perot captivated millions of voters in 1992 with his message of rationality and common sense. (The Week)
• NH: Andrew Yang is a fascinating package of seeming contradictions. Like several other young Democrats in their late 30s or early 40s--Pete Buttigieg, Seth Moulton, and Stacey Abrams--Yang is brainy, has an Ivy League degree, and is very much a progressive in his economic platform. The total cost of his major benefit proposals is beyond counting. He favors a universal basic income of $1,000 per month for all Americans age 18-64 (the net cost of which, he says, would be a "mere" $1.8 trillion annually). He also favors Medicare for all, community colleges for all, preschool for all, and so on.
• On the other hand, unlike the others, he is a venture capitalist who loves markets and who pushes several fairly libertarian proposals: He wants to drastically cut the number of federal employees; hugely increase high-skilled immigration quotas; enact a giant regressive VAT; and preempt local zoning laws to make housing more affordable. An out-of-control wonk, he spells out dozens of highly specific solutions to issues on his website and on out-of-the-box talk shows ranging from Seth Rogan to Freakonomics to Tucker Carlson. Many of his proposals overflow with pollyannaish digital optimism--like federal subsidies to accelerate driverless cars; geoengineering subsidies to solve climate change; and new programs funding smart weapons and smart infrastructure. (Elon Musk would love this guy.) Like so many Millennials, Wang sees no conflict between big government and dynamic capitalism.
• Wang's combination of renegade populism combined with his wonky digital optimism harnessed to "pro-market" innovation makes him a rarity among Democrats: A populist who inspires a lot more enthusiasm among young men (they call themselves "the Yang gang") than among young women. Indeed, as Walther points out, Yang is getting conspicuous support from sites on 4chan and reddit that typically back alt-right and white nationalist groups. To be sure, that's an embarrassment for Yang--who disavows any such ties. But it's also a worrisome sign for Republicans, who have to be concerned that even young populists on the political right find this guy more interesting than anything they have to offer.
• Researchers are using AI to identify “behavioral biomarkers” that can help diagnose individuals with mental health issues like depression and suicide risk. These AI-powered tools would be a boon to clinicians, who currently rely heavily on subjective evaluations derived from a patient’s own reports. (The Wall Street Journal)
• NH: These tools are still very much in their testing phase. Even after they are proven to work reliably on large populations, the next big hurdle will be privacy. Presumably, those who are surveyed will be an "at risk" population that has either voluntarily agreed to have its behavioral markers tracked or has been assigned under court supervision. To avoid liability, an algorithm flag will almost certainly be followed by an in-person evaluation.
• Understandably, Americans will be sensitive to the Minority Report implications of such technology when it is implemented by public authorities. Even the use of similar technologies by employers--which typically don't bother with employee permission--is becoming the focus of increasing controversy. An easier, cheaper, and lower-tech idea would be to train ordinary Americans to conduct talk therapy (also known as "cognitive therapy") with people they know. According to some studies, the payoff would be huge. At the very least, this would encourage all of us to talk more to each other than to our digital devices, which (as many readers of this article noted) may actually be triggering many of the emotional illnesses we are trying to diagnose.
• Travel rewards programs are getting a Millennial makeover, with major brands changing gears as new companies swoop in. The biggest change is increased choice and flexibility, with many more experiences on offer for young people who would rather redeem points for a music festival than a new suitcase. (The New York Times)
• Amazon topped Morning Consult’s annual list of the most loved brands in America, with Netflix and YouTube not far behind. The dominance of tech giants was driven by Millennials and Xers; while Boomers also rank Amazon highly, they’re the most enthusiastic about home improvement stores and shipping carriers. (Morning Consult)
• NH: The contrast between favorite senior brands and favorite youth brands is striking. High among the Boomer favorites are UPS, Home Depot, Tide, Hershey's, and AAA. High among the Millennial favorites are Netflix, Google, Target, Nintendo, and Dollar Tree. Amazon is the only brand that is popular among all generations--faring no worse than 6th place (among Boomers).

DID YOU KNOW?

The Real Cost of Fake News. Nightly news anchors like Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw used to enjoy a sacred relationship with Americans built on trust. But those days are long gone: General Social Survey data show that the share of Americans who trust the press hit a new low of 54% in 2018, down from 84% in 1973. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the Trump-led GOP’s recent war on the press, trusting the media has grown into a partisan issue. In 2018, Democrats were 43 percentage points more likely than Republicans to have “a great deal of” or “only some” confidence in the press. As recently as 1998, this gap stood near zero. What’s going on? Part of the story is that Americans’ trust in all public institutions, media included, has been waning in recent decades. The rise of hyperpartisan “news” sources more concerned with page views than truthfulness has also been a major factor. An American public that used to take the news at face value has learned to be skeptical of what they read.