I don’t really care that much that John Judis is going back on his emerging Democratic majority thesis (again), but what is weird is the odd, bad faith argumentation he’s using to rebut it. I mean, he’s going with the 2014 midterm exit polls of Asian voters instead of the 2016 ones? Acting as though Marco Rubio’s win among Hispanics is poignant even though it’s Florida that is the outlier there, particularly with its older Cuban population? And the anecdata about assimilation is perhaps worth something but who can say how much? You go to Western Pennsylvania and there’s no shortage of indicators of white “hyphenates” around–lots of people who still connect with their Croatian or Czech or Polish heritage in a direct way, perhaps indicating that whiteness isn’t the universally undifferentiated mass it’s said to be by some (including Judis!). Sure, that’s an anecdote, but really with anecdata one is as good as another.

I’m perfectly willing to read an updated critique of the theory but the fact that Hillary Clinton won Millennials by 20 points kind of speaks for itself. And Clinton wasn’t a particularly good fit for Millennials at all–she promised them little and her vision of politics didn’t inspire the way Obama’s did. But she still won by a huge margin. And Trump didn’t really improve upon Romney’s vote percentage either. Judis doesn’t even address these facts. Perhaps he wants to be the new Dick Morris? I honestly don’t know.

 

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Your Vintners