You're probably pure X!




What about the people born before X?

What about the people born before X?


Well that would be the Baby Boomers, born circa 1946-1964

^^^^ What year were you born?

I was born in 1996 as well.

I was born in 1996 as well.


Ok, we can relate when it comes to how well memories crystallize. To this day I can still remember over half of my Kindergarten (2001-2002) roster by heart which was in a public school, unlike pre-K (2000-2001), which was in an old private Christian school, whereas I don't remember anybody who was in there for some reason. I remember back in Kindergarten (2001-2002) learning a lot of stuff and discovering a lot of the pop culture for kids, making friends, learning how to write your name & date on paper, going to P.E., art, music, playing on a large playground, etc. However in pre-K didn't do all of that but just basic stuff, I probably didn't even realize it was 2000-2001 school year at the time, even though I still knew what year it was due to going through stores and seeing poster signs and all that.

Ok, we can relate when it comes to how well memories crystallize. To this day I can still remember over half of my Kindergarten (2001-2002) roster by heart which was in a public school, unlike pre-K (2000-2001), which was in an old private Christian school, whereas I don't remember anybody who was in there for some reason. I remember back in Kindergarten (2001-2002) learning a lot of stuff and discovering a lot of the pop culture for kids, making friends, learning how to write your name & date on paper, going to P.E., art, music, playing on a large playground, etc. However in pre-K didn't do all of that but just basic stuff, I probably didn't even realize it was 2000-2001 school year at the time, even though I still knew what year it was due to going through stores and seeing poster signs and all that.

I'm sooo glad you mentioned the 2000-01 school year. It's interesting being from Missouri, and being 5 years old during the school year. It felt weird because I STILL recall to this day getting up for pre K in the morning watching Recess, Tarzan, Sabrina the Animated Series, Mister Rogers and Arthur in the morning where I lived.

Since I went to private school where it was preschool-8th grade, there were two playgrounds one in the front of the school where 1st-8th grade would play and a back one where pre K and kindergarten play, in Pre K we would play outside in the playground in the back of the school, were read stories to, art class, play with play doe, learned how to write my name and date, and lego blocks, even SOME math too; We would learn but never have ANY homework though :D . Kindergarten I still had classes where the preschool and pre Kers were, lunch with 1st and 2nd grade, book buddies, going to chapel regularly. But I didn't have PE, play outside in the main playground until 1st grade. It was WEIRD! :o  That's probably why that jump from 2000-01 to 2001-02 wasn't that big of a change for me, due to me being my age at the time and how the school was structured, it was a completely different experience from any other kid. I wonder how it would have been if I didn't live in Missouri.

I think the reason this occurs is because of multiple factors:

A. The decade/culture you grew up in

B. How you were influenced

C. When you came of age

So lets use your average Millennial born in say 1989. They were kids during the Prosperous and Liberal times of the Clinton 90's, only to enter their double digits around during the controversial Bush vs. Gore Election, and then later 9/11 ushering in the Patriotic and Conservative 00's. By the time that person turned 18 in 2007, Bush went from a respected leader around in the early-mid 00's, to a laughing stock to the entire world. This was also when Obama was running for president, and assuming someone from 89' was in college at the time, could of easily been influenced by Obama's speeches and policies. Because of this most people from 89', and including most from that general age range, would most likely lean more on the Democratic side for the rest of their lives.

Alternatively someone from my year 1996, on the line between Millennials & Gen Z, would of grew up during the Conservative Bush Years. We were some of the last people to remember a pre 9/11 world and the immediate affect right after. This along with being the last to remember a stable and prosperous economy. Sure not as strong as the 90's, but still pretty damn good. So minus the controversial wars in the Middle East and Hurricane Katrina provided if you lived in that region, most kids my age didn't seem to have a problem with Bush. It was really around in mid-late 2007, with the pop of the Housing Bubble, The Surge in Iraq, The Democrats winning Congress, The Great Recession, and election of Obama, where that started to change.

For my high school years in the early 10's, in a pretty diverse school of people from different racial, ethnic, economic, and various other backgrounds, it was pretty divided. I would say half of the school hated Obama and missed Bush, while the other half loved Obama and were glad Bush was gone (and then you have guys like me who cannot stand either of them  ;D). It wasn't really when I started my Senior year of high school when the divide was actually starting to subside in favor of most actually liking Obama. I think there were a lot factors like us finally coming of age and now learning different viewpoints then the ones our parents instilled into us and or the improving economy under Obama.

All in all guys my age who are now Sophomores in College are pretty Liberal for the most part, however unlike Older Millennials it seems like Younger Millennials like myself and a few others are still a bit more skeptical about both political parties. Hence why Older Millennials seem more kin on Hillary Clinton, they are familiar with Clinton because of their awesome childhoods in the 90's and of course her longtime established career in Washington. While Younger Millennials seem more interested in Bernie Sanders because unlike Clinton, he does not repersent the economic and political establishment and is technically an Independent.

So like the divide between Older Boomers born from 1946-1954 being more Liberal and Younger Boomers (aka Generation Jones) born from 1955-1964 being more conservative, Older Millennials born from 1982-1991 are Very Liberal and seem to be huge supporters of the Democratic Party regardless of some of the party's faults while Younger Millennials born from 1992-2000 (although this is subject to change, at the moment it would be more accurate to say 1992-1997/8) are also Very Liberal but because we're old enough to remember the turbulent Bush years and we came of age during the Lacking Obama Years we seem to not trust either political party.

Although this is just my own theory on the subject at hand your free to have your own


That is kind of an interesting point. Though I'm curious as to where the ultra-progressive SJWs fit into all this. Are they just a loud minority?. Are they more likely to be older millennials, middle (1987-1991), or late? Because I find that people our age are often stereotyped as SJWs (which is odd, considering my sister whom was born in 1987 fits the description perfectly). It could be a regional thing too. After all, I do live in the Silicon Valley.

That is kind of an interesting point. Though I'm curious as to where the ultra-progressive SJWs fit into all this. Are they just a loud minority?. Are they more likely to be older millennials, middle (1987-1991), or late? Because I find that people our age are often stereotyped as SJWs (which is odd, considering my sister whom was born in 1987 fits the description perfectly). It could be a regional thing too. After all, I do live in the Silicon Valley.


Well thats a good question. Personally if you ask me I would say the SJW thing is actually both younger and older Millennial. Although SJWs that started the whole movement would be mostly Older Millennials, people born pre 1987. However the phenomenom is more prevalent in a lot 20 somethings so core Millennials. While younger Millennials in their late teens/early 20's, despite being in College and easily the most likely to be swayed by this rhetoric, most are actually against, hence why there not big fans of Hillary Clinton mainly because most SJWs are in favor of her while Anti SJW Liberals tend to lean more towards Bernie Sanders or sometimes Liberterian or Green Party candidates.

Demographic wise, well I'm from NJ, and while its a very Liberal state the Town and County I live in pretty Center-Right, I guess you could say its a bit Liberterian. Basically if you were to ask the average 30-50 something in my town if they support Gay Marriage or something like that they would say, 'Of Course'. But then ask a follow up question like if you are in support of Obamacare and they'll say 'Hell No'  ;D

Also take into account that I live like a good 45 minutes away from New York, one of the most Liberal cities in America, so regardless of people's strong conservative economic beliefs, they are still very influenced by very liberal social and domestic beliefs.

Speaking about generations it seems that there is finally a good name for the generation born after Millennials, called 'The Founders'.

And guess who came up with the name?

MTV

IilCFlGIgx8

Here's a few article about this:

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/gen-z-post-9-11-generation-called-founders/301578/

http://mic.com/articles/129885/mtv-has-named-the-post-millennial-generation-founders-and-we-must-not-let-this-stand#.BIIvO5PT4

http://thepub.viacom.com/sites/mtvpress/Pages/MTV-ASKS-POST-MILLENNIAL-GENERATION-TO-NAME-ITSELF.aspx

I would like to hear your opinions on this?

I agree that we are different from the Millenials and from what I have seen we are learning from the mistakes that our parents made, Gen X and what our older siblings(Gen Y) have made. But I think there needs to be another name, it sounds a little bit too bland IMHO.

I think events in adulthood are way more important in defining generations than events in childhood.

For Boomers, that would be the Vietnam draft, Watergate, and also the election of Raegan. They entered the job market during the '70s and '80s where pension plans were out and 401ks were in, then they lost their retirement savings during the Great Recession. They're also the "Sandwich Generation": taking care of their aging parents while also taking care of their kids at the same time. Most people place Boomers as born between 1946 - 1964, though some like to group early 60s babies with Gen X.

Gen Xers were the first generation to be worse off compared to the generation before them in a while, they were entering the job market during the early '90s recessions and the early 2000s recession and got straddled with student debt. Also were known for doing a lot of drugs in their youth. Also a part of the "Sandwich generation".  Born 1965 - 1979, but also as early as 1962 and as late as 1982.

Millennials were the people entering or getting a foothold in the job market during the Great Recession and its aftermath (2008 - 2014). They were also the ones who protested the Iraq War and were the anti-George Bush in general. Very irreligious, very liberal, and also very stingy with money. Generally, I'd put it at 1980 to 1995, but I think it can be extended to 1997. I'm taking some first year university courses and came across some 1996-1997 borns, and they share a lot of the mentality, but they haven't got to vote in an election yet. I don't think we can say for sure when Millennials end, since the generation has not fully matured yet.

Gen Z starts somewhere around there though, the late '90s. If you can't remember the Bush years and the Great Recession then it's hard for me to call you a Millennial IMO.

---

Also a very relevant article, How Birth Year Influences Political Views

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html

A lot of people like to divide Boomers into early Boomers (1946 - 1954, who grew up to be anti-Nixon and anti-Vietnam) and late Boomers (1955 - 1964) who have a lot in common with Gen X, but still grew up in economically prosperous times. You'll see that the Silent Gen (1937 - 1944) is very Republican. With Early Boomers (1946 - 1954) you start seeing Democratic tendancies. With 1955 - 1964 and 1965 - 1979, you're back to Gen X and Late Boomers being strong Republicans. But then in 1979 and 1980 you hit a switch, all of a sudden you get to the Millennials who are strong Democrats.

Caution with the data though, it includes only whites. Once you include non-whites, who almost always vote Democrat, then you find a strong Democratic cohort among Early Boomers and Millennials.

I can relate to my parents who are fairly republican (Born '68, '69) that they came of age in a difficult job market. They also were just starting to get proseprous when the Dot Com Bubble burst and bought our house at the worse time, 2002 and had to foreclose.

I feel like I lean republican however there are some issues that I disagree with. I disagree though on the Bush/Great Recession thing. I remember every year in my life clearly from 2005 onwards and I do remember the Great Recession, the last Bush years were everyone hated him and such. The Oldest Gen Z will remember those years.

From what I have seen, it seems like our generation is going to be a bit less liberal than Gen. Y. Our generation is socailly accepting and diverse that is true however President Obama is not really seen as a great president. He may have gotten us out of Bush/Clintons fianancial freefall but he has not really been a good president in stopping those horrible terrorist attacks, ISIS, school shootings. I think that we are going to be an independent generation. We hold distaste for both parties.

I am Gen Z or whatever the heck it is called.

Well thats a good question. Personally if you ask me I would say the SJW thing is actually both younger and older Millennial. Although SJWs that started the whole movement would be mostly Older Millennials, people born pre 1987. However the phenomenom is more prevalent in a lot 20 somethings so core Millennials. While younger Millennials in their late teens/early 20's, despite being in College and easily the most likely to be swayed by this rhetoric, most are actually against, hence why there not big fans of Hillary Clinton mainly because most SJWs are in favor of her while Anti SJW Liberals tend to lean more towards Bernie Sanders or sometimes Liberterian or Green Party candidates.

Demographic wise, well I'm from NJ, and while its a very Liberal state the Town and County I live in pretty Center-Right, I guess you could say its a bit Liberterian. Basically if you were to ask the average 30-50 something in my town if they support Gay Marriage or something like that they would say, 'Of Course'. But then ask a follow up question like if you are in support of Obamacare and they'll say 'Hell No'  ;D

Also take into account that I live like a good 45 minutes away from New York, one of the most Liberal cities in America, so regardless of people's strong conservative economic beliefs, they are still very influenced by very liberal social and domestic beliefs.


Yeah, I kind of felt that the younger millennials that do become SJWs are simply confused. On the bright side, I do think they can be swayed away from that mindset as well. Now that I think about it, outside of the liberal arts/political science majors, the students at my school tend to be relatively varied when it comes to politics. It's just that the SJWs are a loud minority. I think it all depends on the person. But I have noticed that the core millennials (like my sister) tend to be very passionate (for lack of a better word) in their world view. If I were to say anything to my sister that slightly contradicts her ideas, she would accuse me of "sounding like a republican" (which is funny, because I am actually a registered democrat). Don't get me wrong, I love my sister, and she is a nice person. But I am kind of afraid to talk politics with her, in that it might put a strain in our relationship.

Yeah, I kind of felt that the younger millennials that do become SJWs are simply confused. On the bright side, I do think they can be swayed away from that mindset as well. Now that I think about it, outside of the liberal arts/political science majors, the students at my school tend to be relatively varied when it comes to politics. It's just that the SJWs are a loud minority. I think it all depends on the person. But I have noticed that the core millennials (like my sister) tend to be very passionate (for lack of a better word) in their world view. If I were to say anything to my sister that slightly contradicts her ideas, she would accuse me of "sounding like a republican" (which is funny, because I am actually a registered democrat). Don't get me wrong, I love my sister, and she is a nice person. But I am kind of afraid to talk politics with her, in that it might put a strain in our relationship.


I totally agree! Its the same with my two sisters born in 1985' and 1986'. They are HUGE Obama & Clinton supporters and are devout Democrats.

I personally am not a huge fan of President Obama but not because I'm a Conservative but because I am not a huge fan of how Center leaning he is on many policies. Because of that the Bush's Wars, Domestic Policy, and to less extent his economic policies, bled into the Obama era. Now I understand that not all of this is his fault, in fact a good chunk of it is the reason of the mostly Republican Congress blocking reasonable legistlation like recently how the Repubs want to sell guns to terrorists. However in other policies like the NDAA, The Prism Program, Our Current Military Involvement in several countries and our Drone Strikes killing innocent people (like this hospital recently http://www.ibtimes.com/afghan-hospital-airstrike-us-has-long-history-mistakenly-killing-civilians-2129457) and the TPP which is being finalized as we speak, its almost as if he sort of abandoned me and many others.

Anyways whenever I bring up these critical points about him along with a few other established Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton amongst my sisters, they flip their sh*t and call me a 'Stupid Conservative'...

Meanwhile my sister born in 1991, agrees with me and has the same issues with a lot of established Democrats as well. And even though we might have slight differences on various issues she doesn't just outright dismiss me and call me a stupid remark.

So I agree with you 100% there seems to be a pretty clear divide between Older Millennials and Younger Millennials when it comes to political issues, which is surprising because minus spending childhoods in different decades Older & Younger Millennials are very similar in many other ways like how we use technology, what we get nostalgic over, our personality traits, etc.

Its not that one half of the generation is Conservative or one half is Liberal, but it seems that the older half is much more lets say Gullible while they younger half is a lot more pragmatic, but all in all but both sides are pretty left leaning.

Speaking about generations it seems that there is finally a good name for the generation born after Millennials, called 'The Founders'.

And guess who came up with the name?

MTV

IilCFlGIgx8

Here's a few article about this:

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/gen-z-post-9-11-generation-called-founders/301578/

http://mic.com/articles/129885/mtv-has-named-the-post-millennial-generation-founders-and-we-must-not-let-this-stand#.BIIvO5PT4

http://thepub.viacom.com/sites/mtvpress/Pages/MTV-ASKS-POST-MILLENNIAL-GENERATION-TO-NAME-ITSELF.aspx

I would like to hear your opinions on this?
There were already names for the Z generation. How did they not know that? The alternatives are Plurals, Homeland, Digital Natives, Centinnials, New Silent, and Igen. As for the new name, Founders could be a good one if they are able to change the world and make it a much better place when they are in power.

On one of the sites, I found this photo that shows the decades of youth.

http://thepub.viacom.com/sites/mtvpress/Releases%20Assets/1218/decades%20of%20youth%20final%2012%2001%202015.jpg

I also found some articles stating that the name is dumb

http://gothamist.com/2015/12/02/mtv_and_gen_z_can_go_2_hell.php

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/6/9858632/generation-z-needs-a-better-name-than-the-founders

http://community.good.is/link/who-comes-after-the-millennial-generation-meet-the-founders#discuss

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-are-about-to-be-upstaged-by-the-founders-2015-12-03

http://www.brandchannel.com/2015/12/02/mtv-founders-generation-120215/

I agree that we are different from the Millenials and from what I have seen we are learning from the mistakes that our parents made, Gen X and what our older siblings(Gen Y) have made. But I think there needs to be another name, it sounds a little bit too bland IMHO.I can relate to my parents who are fairly republican (Born '68, '69) that they came of age in a difficult job market. They also were just starting to get proseprous when the Dot Com Bubble burst and bought our house at the worse time, 2002 and had to foreclose.

I feel like I lean republican however there are some issues that I disagree with. I disagree though on the Bush/Great Recession thing. I remember every year in my life clearly from 2005 onwards and I do remember the Great Recession, the last Bush years were everyone hated him and such. The Oldest Gen Z will remember those years.

From what I have seen, it seems like our generation is going to be a bit less liberal than Gen. Y. Our generation is socailly accepting and diverse that is true however President Obama is not really seen as a great president. He may have gotten us out of Bush/Clintons fianancial freefall but he has not really been a good president in stopping those horrible terrorist attacks, ISIS, school shootings. I think that we are going to be an independent generation. We hold distaste for both parties.

I am Gen Z or whatever the heck it is called.

Were you born in 1999?

There were already names for the Z generation. How did they not know that? The alternatives are Plurals, Homeland, Digital Natives, Centinnials, New Silent, and Igen. As for the new name, Founders could be a good one if they are able to change the world and make it a much better place when they are in power.

On one of the sites, I found this photo that shows the decades of youth.

http://thepub.viacom.com/sites/mtvpress/Releases%20Assets/1218/decades%20of%20youth%20final%2012%2001%202015.jpg

I also found some articles stating that the name is dumb

http://gothamist.com/2015/12/02/mtv_and_gen_z_can_go_2_hell.php

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/6/9858632/generation-z-needs-a-better-name-than-the-founders

http://community.good.is/link/who-comes-after-the-millennial-generation-meet-the-founders#discuss

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-are-about-to-be-upstaged-by-the-founders-2015-12-03

http://www.brandchannel.com/2015/12/02/mtv-founders-generation-120215/

I'm not saying "lol Kids today r stupid!", but picking a name like "The Founders" for your generation seems a bit narcissistic and ridiculous. Then again, who isn't self-centered when they're 13-14? ;D

I think the reason this occurs is because of multiple factors:

A. The decade/culture you grew up in

B. How you were influenced

C. When you came of age

So lets use your average Millennial born in say 1989. They were kids during the Prosperous and Liberal times of the Clinton 90's, only to enter their double digits around during the controversial Bush vs. Gore Election, and then later 9/11 ushering in the Patriotic and Conservative 00's. By the time that person turned 18 in 2007, Bush went from a respected leader around in the early-mid 00's, to a laughing stock to the entire world. This was also when Obama was running for president, and assuming someone from 89' was in college at the time, could of easily been influenced by Obama's speeches and policies. Because of this most people from 89', and including most from that general age range, would most likely lean more on the Democratic side for the rest of their lives.

Alternatively someone from my year 1996, on the line between Millennials & Gen Z, would of grew up during the Conservative Bush Years. We were some of the last people to remember a pre 9/11 world and the immediate affect right after. This along with being the last to remember a stable and prosperous economy. Sure not as strong as the 90's, but still pretty damn good. So minus the controversial wars in the Middle East and Hurricane Katrina provided if you lived in that region, most kids my age didn't seem to have a problem with Bush. It was really around in mid-late 2007, with the pop of the Housing Bubble, The Surge in Iraq, The Democrats winning Congress, The Great Recession, and election of Obama, where that started to change.

For my high school years in the early 10's, in a pretty diverse school of people from different racial, ethnic, economic, and various other backgrounds, it was pretty divided. I would say half of the school hated Obama and missed Bush, while the other half loved Obama and were glad Bush was gone (and then you have guys like me who cannot stand either of them  ;D). It wasn't really when I started my Senior year of high school when the divide was actually starting to subside in favor of most actually liking Obama. I think there were a lot factors like us finally coming of age and now learning different viewpoints then the ones our parents instilled into us and or the improving economy under Obama.

All in all guys my age who are now Sophomores in College are pretty Liberal for the most part, however unlike Older Millennials it seems like Younger Millennials like myself and a few others are still a bit more skeptical about both political parties. Hence why Older Millennials seem more kin on Hillary Clinton, they are familiar with Clinton because of their awesome childhoods in the 90's and of course her longtime established career in Washington. While Younger Millennials seem more interested in Bernie Sanders because unlike Clinton, he does not repersent the economic and political establishment and is technically an Independent.

So like the divide between Older Boomers born from 1946-1954 being more Liberal and Younger Boomers (aka Generation Jones) born from 1955-1964 being more conservative, Older Millennials born from 1982-1991 are Very Liberal and seem to be huge supporters of the Democratic Party regardless of some of the party's faults while Younger Millennials born from 1992-2000 (although this is subject to change, at the moment it would be more accurate to say 1992-1997/8) are also Very Liberal but because we're old enough to remember the turbulent Bush years and we came of age during the Lacking Obama Years we seem to not trust either political party.

Although this is just my own theory on the subject at hand your free to have your own


Yeah, I think as more times goes by we are starting to see some fairly clear divisions between the first and second halves of Gen Y when it comes to politics.

I see it pretty much the way you described. People my age tend to have a very negative view of the Republican Party, partially because of social issues of course, but in large part due to us coming of age around the same time that George W. Bush's popularity began to crater. You have to remember that at the same time my friends and I were graduating college and entering the job market in 2008-09 the Great Recession was reaching it's worst point (unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009), and we pretty much exclusively blamed Bush for this. On the flip side, many around my age tend to get very protective and defensive when it comes to Obama. I think a large part of this may be due to the fact that we were the main group that got sucked into the "Hope and Change" hype of 2008, and are loathe to admit that Obama has not fully lived up to the incredible expectations of that campaign.

Younger Yers seem to be slightly more open to voting Republican. In fact, there is supposedly an exit poll out there (though I have not seen it myself) showing that 18 and 19-year-olds (1994 and 1993 borns) actually went for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Perhaps not being old enough to vote for Obama in 2008, and coming of age largely during his term in office, is a part of the reason those born later in the generation seem to have a more cynical view of the Democrats.

That's a good point about Hillary as well. It seems clear that the massive nostalgia that so many people my age have for the booming Clinton '90s is a factor in the support that many of us have for Hillary. It will be very interesting how the youngest Yers (that 1995-98 cohort) swings when they vote for the first time in 2016. If social issues don't play a big part in the campaign, I could see that group not being too keen on 12 years of Democratic rule and voting more conservative than Core Millennials.

I personally am not a huge fan of President Obama but not because I'm a Conservative but because I am not a huge fan of how Center leaning he is on many policies. Because of that the Bush's Wars, Domestic Policy, and to less extent his economic policies, bled into the Obama era. Now I understand that not all of this is his fault, in fact a good chunk of it is the reason of the mostly Republican Congress blocking reasonable legistlation like recently how the Repubs want to sell guns to terrorists. However in other policies like the NDAA, The Prism Program, Our Current Military Involvement in several countries and our Drone Strikes killing innocent people (like this hospital recently http://www.ibtimes.com/afghan-hospital-airstrike-us-has-long-history-mistakenly-killing-civilians-2129457) and the TPP which is being finalized as we speak, its almost as if he sort of abandoned me and many others.


I read a book in college called The Politics Presidents Make, written by Stephen Skowronek, which proposes a fascinating retrospective of American presidential administrations, arguing that how successful and influential a chief executive of is, as well as how far from the center he/she conducts her administration, depends primarily on his/her place in political time, as opposed to his/her personal abilities.  Essentially, all presidents have a particular place within a political regime cycle, which opens with a reconstructive president, followed by a combination of regime-affiliated presidents and preemptive/opposition presidents, and finally ending with a disjunctive president before the cycle restarts.  Just a brief overview of the different types of presidents (be warned:  this isn't easy to completely understand immediately, so feel free to skip ahead if you want):

Reconstructive Presidents:
These are opposition leaders who come to power in the midst of a vulnerable regime.  Their agenda is rabidly critical of not only the current administration, but America's social landscape at-large.  They call for a complete break from the past and are usually successful in transforming the nation during their presidencies.  This is because not only does their message resonate with dominant political concerns, media-promoted or otherwise, but the leadership of the party that they unseat are severely fissured, due to its need to rearticulate the core values of their aging regime to a constantly evolving public.  Far and large, reconstructive presidents tend to be the most influential and iconic leaders in American history.
Examples:  Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan

Affiliated Presidents/Orthodox Innovators:
These are affiliated leaders elected in a resilient political regime.  Though for the most part, they are able to further articulate the goals originally blueprinted by their regime's reconstructive founder, they face challenges in effectively executing their policies that their reconstructive parents did not.  This is due to the fact that, with the political landscape already having been transformed to reflect their worldviews, they cannot leverage the same personal authority over the current regime as the regime's founder.  Their goal is simply to continue old policies with minor, articulate changes to address new challenges.
Examples:  James Madison, Martin Van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, both George Bush's

Preemptive Presidents:
As oppositional leaders to a resilient regime, preemptive leaders are usually forced towards the center, as opposed to aligning themselves directly with their party's core interests.  Because they do not have the same institutional advantages as the party in power, their only claims to legitimacy rest on their ability to straddle between both political parties.  Usually, their administrations are a hybrid of cleaning up the fallout left by the previous affiliated president, as well as furthering positive gains already started by the other party.  Lacking the institutional barriers of the dominant party, preemptive presidents often end their administrations in political checkmate, impeachment or otherwise.
Examples:  John Tyler, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama

Disjunctive Presidents:
Disjunctive presidents are leaders affiliated with a vulnerable regime.  After the national terrain has transformed enough, the party with the most traditional influence over national institutions will eventually shatter into so many pieces that succeeding affiliated presidents will have no lucid mandate from which to run the country.  Usually at the end of a political regime, philosophies and practices that once struck a chord with the bulk of the nation upon the dawn of the regime are now seen as inadequate, corrupt, irrelevant, or even the very cause of the nation's major issues.  The party in power, thus, faces a critical dilemma - although they have to made significant compromises in order to effectively meet the nation's current needs, they do not have the political support base necessary to actually carry forth with such newly adapted policies.  As a result, the party in power is more factionalized than ever before, unable to establish a clear and coherent agenda that both addresses the country's issues while still upholding the regime's authenticated values.  The commander-in-chief, thus, is usually a hands-on technocrat, not unlikely to have been elected from outside his/her party's traditional power base (people more experienced in the private sector than in political office are common representatives of this).  Unable to rally his/her quarreling party to his own order of action, nor able to make allies with an increasingly disenchanted opposition, disjunctive presidents often become politically isolated while in office, making them easy prey for a new party eager to establish a new political regime.
Examples:  John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter

With this theory in-mind, it's a lot easier to understand our current situation, both why Obama has not been able to deliver upon the change he promised in 2008, and also what the near future will probably bring.  As unpopular as George W. Bush was upon his exit from office, his party remained relatively stable, its primary leaders unified by their capitalist, anti-terror, socially conservative views, and as a result recouped almost immediately after Obama took the oath of office through the probe of the Tea Party.  Despite Generation Y and much of Generation X's strong opposition to the W. administration, tax breaks for the rich, minimal social protections, massive spending on defense, and other Reaganite ideals remained predominantly intact, since its institutional proponents (i.e., big business lobbyists like the Koch Bros. and conservative media like Fox News) were still robust; do not be surprised that Occupy Wall Street was ultimately unfruitful.  While Obama did introduce some vital stimulus to the economy and cut back on our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, his presidency's relationship to George W. Bush was ultimately more mixed than it was all about "change."

However, ever since about 2011/2012, following an incredibly turbulent election season for the Republican Party and Mitt Romney's failed bid for the presidency, the leadership within the party has become significantly more divided.  With the ascent of social media and drastically increased support of progressive ideals like gay marriage, gender fluidity, gender equality, increased gun control, and racial fairness, not to mention a wealth inequality gap that only continues to grow more embarrassing by the month, the Republican mandate that once stood as a refreshing shift away from discredited big-government practices in 1980 now appear to symbolize everything that is dysfunctional about America.  Even if you are a Republican who advocates for smaller government, you can no longer openly express your love of Reaganite beliefs with nearly the same amount of pride as you could in the 1980s.

Based on this, I project that if a Republican wins the 2016 election (which is likely, given the obvious obstacles facing Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton), he or she will be a disjunctive president.  The general frontrunners throughout the Electoral Season thus far - Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush - reinforce this perfectly.  All three men are total outsiders to Washington politics, garnering public popularity primarily based on their break from the mainstream establishment.  Donald Trump may talk a big game, but his disagreements with even much of his own party raise problematic implications for him should he be elected; he would have a difficult time passing his agenda through Congress due to lacking a broad political base in Washington and would ultimately be left with nothing but the most desperate, pragmatic measures to reaffirm his presidential authority.  Carson, Bush, and even Marco Rubio would likely face the similar problems, due to the deep splits within the Republican Party as a result of its regime agenda's loss of resonance with the general public; Trump is simply the most attractive candidate in public polls in the current context because of his break from establishment insiders and will to just get things done, absurd as his ideas are.  While the Reagan Political Regime is still standing tall at the moment due to Republicans surviving off of critique against the Obama administration (in the same way animosity towards Watergate and Ford's pardoning of Nixon helped elect Jimmy Carter), I predict that once a new Republican is elected to office, his/her administration will prove to be a disjunctive failure, opening the door for a Bernie Sanders-like outspoken liberal to not only win the White House in the subsequent election, but finally give birth to a completely new sociopolitical landscape, which delivers more directly to the needs of the public and isn't knotted up in the hands of elite conservatives.  Heck, even Mitt Romney probably would have become a disjunctive president had he won in 2012; he flip-flopped constantly over his platform and won the Republican nomination primarily because he was a Washington outsider with experience in the private sector and electably moderate political views.

To summarize, this is what the Reagan Political Regime would probably look like after its completion:

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989):  Reconstructive - "In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993):  Affiliated/Orthodox Innovator - Finishes the Cold War and continues some of the work Reagan started.
Bill Clinton (1993-2001):  Preemptive - Supports Reaganite programs like NAFTA and privatization, but also proposes "third-way" alternatives to meet the needs of the public.
George W. Bush (2001-2009):  Affiliated/Orthodox Innovator - Rides off the continued support of capitalist practices, conservative social policies, and anti-terrorism.  Leaves office unpopular due to overwhelming Democratic backlash.
Barack Obama (2009-2017):  Preemptive - Promises "change" from the most unpopular results of Bush '43's presidency but still upholds the status quo for the most part, due to resilient opposition.
Donald Trump/Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio (2017-2021):  Disjunctive - Elected to power due to the need to break from current political gridlock, but is ultimately unable to execute a successful or coherent agenda through office, finally rendering aging Reaganite institutions vulnerable to repudiation.
Bernie Sanders-esque President (2021-???):  Reconstructive - With Reaganite orthodoxy finally discredited to the point of irrelevance, and with a broad popular consensus supporting him/her, this President comes in and finally starts to undo the disgusting wealth gap, introduce more comprehensive gun control laws, ensure fairer protections and representations to all minorities, and achieve most everything else the public has long clamored for.  While this person will certainly face vicious opponents as his/her presidency continues, his/her legacy will ultimately be the most seismic since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.

Were you born in 1999?

Yes actually! I am pretty young compared to you guys!

Yeah, I think as more times goes by we are starting to see some fairly clear divisions between the first and second halves of Gen Y when it comes to politics.

I see it pretty much the way you described. People my age tend to have a very negative view of the Republican Party, partially because of social issues of course, but in large part due to us coming of age around the same time that George W. Bush's popularity began to crater. You have to remember that at the same time my friends and I were graduating college and entering the job market in 2008-09 the Great Recession was reaching it's worst point (unemployment peaked at 10% in October 2009), and we pretty much exclusively blamed Bush for this. On the flip side, many around my age tend to get very protective and defensive when it comes to Obama. I think a large part of this may be due to the fact that we were the main group that got sucked into the "Hope and Change" hype of 2008, and are loathe to admit that Obama has not fully lived up to the incredible expectations of that campaign.

Younger Yers seem to be slightly more open to voting Republican. In fact, there is supposedly an exit poll out there (though I have not seen it myself) showing that 18 and 19-year-olds (1994 and 1993 borns) actually went for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Perhaps not being old enough to vote for Obama in 2008, and coming of age largely during his term in office, is a part of the reason those born later in the generation seem to have a more cynical view of the Democrats.

That's a good point about Hillary as well. It seems clear that the massive nostalgia that so many people my age have for the booming Clinton '90s is a factor in the support that many of us have for Hillary. It will be very interesting how the youngest Yers (that 1995-98 cohort) swings when they vote for the first time in 2016. If social issues don't play a big part in the campaign, I could see that group not being too keen on 12 years of Democratic rule and voting more conservative than Core Millennials.


As someone in this age demographic I would say its leaning on the Liberal side, however like the 1991-1994 demographic, its not too far fetched for someone my age to vote conservative


I read a book in college called The Politics Presidents Make, written by Stephen Skowronek, which proposes a fascinating retrospective of American presidential administrations, arguing that how successful and influential a chief executive of is, as well as how far from the center he/she conducts her administration, depends primarily on his/her place in political time, as opposed to his/her personal abilities.  Essentially, all presidents have a particular place within a political regime cycle, which opens with a reconstructive president, followed by a combination of regime-affiliated presidents and preemptive/opposition presidents, and finally ending with a disjunctive president before the cycle restarts.  Just a brief overview of the different types of presidents (be warned:  this isn't easy to completely understand immediately, so feel free to skip ahead if you want):

Reconstructive Presidents:
These are opposition leaders who come to power in the midst of a vulnerable regime.  Their agenda is rabidly critical of not only the current administration, but America's social landscape at-large.  They call for a complete break from the past and are usually successful in transforming the nation during their presidencies.  This is because not only does their message resonate with dominant political concerns, media-promoted or otherwise, but the leadership of the party that they unseat are severely fissured, due to its need to rearticulate the core values of their aging regime to a constantly evolving public.  Far and large, reconstructive presidents tend to be the most influential and iconic leaders in American history.
Examples:  Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan

Affiliated Presidents/Orthodox Innovators:
These are affiliated leaders elected in a resilient political regime.  Though for the most part, they are able to further articulate the goals originally blueprinted by their regime's reconstructive founder, they face challenges in effectively executing their policies that their reconstructive parents did not.  This is due to the fact that, with the political landscape already having been transformed to reflect their worldviews, they cannot leverage the same personal authority over the current regime as the regime's founder.  Their goal is simply to continue old policies with minor, articulate changes to address new challenges.
Examples:  James Madison, Martin Van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, both George Bush's

Preemptive Presidents:
As oppositional leaders to a resilient regime, preemptive leaders are usually forced towards the center, as opposed to aligning themselves directly with their party's core interests.  Because they do not have the same institutional advantages as the party in power, their only claims to legitimacy rest on their ability to straddle between both political parties.  Usually, their administrations are a hybrid of cleaning up the fallout left by the previous affiliated president, as well as furthering positive gains already started by the other party.  Lacking the institutional barriers of the dominant party, preemptive presidents often end their administrations in political checkmate, impeachment or otherwise.
Examples:  John Tyler, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama

Disjunctive Presidents:
Disjunctive presidents are leaders affiliated with a vulnerable regime.  After the national terrain has transformed enough, the party with the most traditional influence over national institutions will eventually shatter into so many pieces that succeeding affiliated presidents will have no lucid mandate from which to run the country.  Usually at the end of a political regime, philosophies and practices that once struck a chord with the bulk of the nation upon the dawn of the regime are now seen as inadequate, corrupt, irrelevant, or even the very cause of the nation's major issues.  The party in power, thus, faces a critical dilemma - although they have to made significant compromises in order to effectively meet the nation's current needs, they do not have the political support base necessary to actually carry forth with such newly adapted policies.  As a result, the party in power is more factionalized than ever before, unable to establish a clear and coherent agenda that both addresses the country's issues while still upholding the regime's authenticated values.  The commander-in-chief, thus, is usually a hands-on technocrat, not unlikely to have been elected from outside his/her party's traditional power base (people more experienced in the private sector than in political office are common representatives of this).  Unable to rally his/her quarreling party to his own order of action, nor able to make allies with an increasingly disenchanted opposition, disjunctive presidents often become politically isolated while in office, making them easy prey for a new party eager to establish a new political regime.
Examples:  John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter

With this theory in-mind, it's a lot easier to understand our current situation, both why Obama has not been able to deliver upon the change he promised in 2008, and also what the near future will probably bring.  As unpopular as George W. Bush was upon his exit from office, his party remained relatively stable, its primary leaders unified by their capitalist, anti-terror, socially conservative views, and as a result recouped almost immediately after Obama took the oath of office through the probe of the Tea Party.  Despite Generation Y and much of Generation X's strong opposition to the W. administration, tax breaks for the rich, minimal social protections, massive spending on defense, and other Reaganite ideals remained predominantly intact, since its institutional proponents (i.e., big business lobbyists like the Koch Bros. and conservative media like Fox News) were still robust; do not be surprised that Occupy Wall Street was ultimately unfruitful.  While Obama did introduce some vital stimulus to the economy and cut back on our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, his presidency's relationship to George W. Bush was ultimately more mixed than it was all about "change."

However, ever since about 2011/2012, following an incredibly turbulent election season for the Republican Party and Mitt Romney's failed bid for the presidency, the leadership within the party has become significantly more divided.  With the ascent of social media and drastically increased support of progressive ideals like gay marriage, gender fluidity, gender equality, increased gun control, and racial fairness, not to mention a wealth inequality gap that only continues to grow more embarrassing by the month, the Republican mandate that once stood as a refreshing shift away from discredited big-government practices in 1980 now appear to symbolize everything that is dysfunctional about America.  Even if you are a Republican who advocates for smaller government, you can no longer openly express your love of Reaganite beliefs with nearly the same amount of pride as you could in the 1980s.

Based on this, I project that if a Republican wins the 2016 election (which is likely, given the obvious obstacles facing Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton), he or she will be a disjunctive president.  The general frontrunners throughout the Electoral Season thus far - Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush - reinforce this perfectly.  All three men are total outsiders to Washington politics, garnering public popularity primarily based on their break from the mainstream establishment.  Donald Trump may talk a big game, but his disagreements with even much of his own party raise problematic implications for him should he be elected; he would have a difficult time passing his agenda through Congress due to lacking a broad political base in Washington and would ultimately be left with nothing but the most desperate, pragmatic measures to reaffirm his presidential authority.  Carson, Bush, and even Marco Rubio would likely face the similar problems, due to the deep splits within the Republican Party as a result of its regime agenda's loss of resonance with the general public; Trump is simply the most attractive candidate in public polls in the current context because of his break from establishment insiders and will to just get things done, absurd as his ideas are.  While the Reagan Political Regime is still standing tall at the moment due to Republicans surviving off of critique against the Obama administration (in the same way animosity towards Watergate and Ford's pardoning of Nixon helped elect Jimmy Carter), I predict that once a new Republican is elected to office, his/her administration will prove to be a disjunctive failure, opening the door for a Bernie Sanders-like outspoken liberal to not only win the White House in the subsequent election, but finally give birth to a completely new sociopolitical landscape, which delivers more directly to the needs of the public and isn't knotted up in the hands of elite conservatives.  Heck, even Mitt Romney probably would have become a disjunctive president had he won in 2012; he flip-flopped constantly over his platform and won the Republican nomination primarily because he was a Washington outsider with experience in the private sector and electably moderate political views.

To summarize, this is what the Reagan Political Regime would probably look like after its completion:

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989):  Reconstructive - "In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993):  Affiliated/Orthodox Innovator - Finishes the Cold War and continues some of the work Reagan started.
Bill Clinton (1993-2001):  Preemptive - Supports Reaganite programs like NAFTA and privatization, but also proposes "third-way" alternatives to meet the needs of the public.
George W. Bush (2001-2009):  Affiliated/Orthodox Innovator - Rides off the continued support of capitalist practices, conservative social policies, and anti-terrorism.  Leaves office unpopular due to overwhelming Democratic backlash.
Barack Obama (2009-2017):  Preemptive - Promises "change" from the most unpopular results of Bush '43's presidency but still upholds the status quo for the most part, due to resilient opposition.
Donald Trump/Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio (2017-2021):  Disjunctive - Elected to power due to the need to break from current political gridlock, but is ultimately unable to execute a successful or coherent agenda through office, finally rendering aging Reaganite institutions vulnerable to repudiation.
Bernie Sanders-esque President (2021-???):  Reconstructive - With Reaganite orthodoxy finally discredited to the point of irrelevance, and with a broad popular consensus supporting him/her, this President comes in and finally starts to undo the disgusting wealth gap, introduce more comprehensive gun control laws, ensure fairer protections and representations to all minorities, and achieve most everything else the public has long clamored for.  While this person will certainly face vicious opponents as his/her presidency continues, his/her legacy will ultimately be the most seismic since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.


This was a very interesting read thanks!

I agree with what you are saying. Its weird because I always found Obama and Clinton to be very similar in their policies, how they communicate, personalities, etc. So I guess it makes sense that they are socially both Preemptive Democratic Presidents.

It'll be interesting how the 2016 election plays out. My man is Sanders, however it seems that the Republican candidates like Trump, Carson, & Cruz are going to be hard to beat. If any of the Repubs win It'll be interesting how their administration plays out.

I was predicting that if someone from that party won presidency that the presidency itself would be a very Reaganistic. Especially Trump, I see him as the modern day version of Reagan, both were political outsiders, both brought up controversial issues at hand, both were very elderly when they campaigned (Reagan was 69 in 1980, Trump is 69 in 2015) and both have been seen to have success which drawed/s in voters.

However based on your analysis Trump or any repub candidate would be a Disjunctive president and not a Reconstructive one, which actually makes a lot of sense since the Repubs are losing the Social Culture war and its only a matter of time when they start losing the economic & domestic culture war

With all this talk about politics, has anybody here come across a 1991 born that is strongly democratic? I am very democratic, but I would like to know how many more of my kind born my year are strongly democratic.

With all this talk about politics, has anybody here come across a 1991 born that is strongly democratic? I am very democratic, but I would like to know how many more of my kind born my year are strongly democratic.


I think a lot has to do with family and personal relationships or experiences too.

Why do the last three have to be letters? Why can't it be  Millenials, other , and other.  Just wondering!

Why do the last three have to be letters? Why can't it be  Millenials, other , and other.  Just wondering!


Well it seems that most people are now renaming Gen Z either Igeneration (which is stupid) or Homelanders (which I actually like). You also have the new term The Founders (founded by MTV, and no that was not intentional  ;D)

Why do the last three have to be letters? Why can't it be Millennials, other , and other.  Just wondering!


There are alternative names I found from some sources

X: Baby Busters, 13th Generation, MTV Generation, Digital Immigrants and Latchkey

Y: Millennials, Echo Boomers, Why, Baby Boomlets and Digital Pioneers

Z: Plurals, Homeland, Digital Natives, New Silent Generation and iGeneration.


Well it seems that most people are now renaming Gen Z either Igeneration (which is stupid) or Homelanders (which I actually like). You also have the new term The Founders (founded by MTV, and no that was not intentional  ;D)
How do you feel on the name plurals?

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/216355/plurals-americas-last-generation-with-caucasian.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hais-and-morley-winograd/plurals-generation_b_1492384.html

http://mashable.com/2015/05/12/marketing-homeland-generation/#YxC9rNsKpuqz

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/38154.asp#multiview

http://www.digitalsurgeons.com/thoughts/strategy/meet-the-youngest-consumers-plurals/

There are alternative names I found from some sources

X: Baby Busters, 13th Generation, MTV Generation, Digital Immigrants and Latchkey

Y: Millennials, Echo Boomers, Why, Baby Boomlets and Digital Pioneers

Z: Plurals, Homeland, Digital Natives, New Silent Generation and iGeneration.
How do you feel on the name plurals?

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/216355/plurals-americas-last-generation-with-caucasian.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hais-and-morley-winograd/plurals-generation_b_1492384.html

http://mashable.com/2015/05/12/marketing-homeland-generation/#YxC9rNsKpuqz

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/38154.asp#multiview

http://www.digitalsurgeons.com/thoughts/strategy/meet-the-youngest-consumers-plurals/


I like the name and it makes sense since generations are becoming more diverse and socially accepting. However my favorite is probably Homelanders because it represents the generation that never knew a world where the U.S wasn't at war with someone, when the economy was stable, and life before technology started to consume us like today. Most people who are fans of the Homelanders name typically start the generation in or around 2001, and if you apply all of those things I mentioned above, most 2001 babies would only have a vague recollection of the things I mentioned

I think the reason this occurs is because of multiple factors:

A. The decade/culture you grew up in

B. How you were influenced

C. When you came of age

So lets use your average Millennial born in say 1989. They were kids during the Prosperous and Liberal times of the Clinton 90's, only to enter their double digits around during the controversial Bush vs. Gore Election, and then later 9/11 ushering in the Patriotic and Conservative 00's. By the time that person turned 18 in 2007, Bush went from a respected leader around in the early-mid 00's, to a laughing stock to the entire world. This was also when Obama was running for president, and assuming someone from 89' was in college at the time, could of easily been influenced by Obama's speeches and policies. Because of this most people from 89', and including most from that general age range, would most likely lean more on the Democratic side for the rest of their lives.

Alternatively someone from my year 1996, on the line between Millennials & Gen Z, would of grew up during the Conservative Bush Years. We were some of the last people to remember a pre 9/11 world and the immediate affect right after. This along with being the last to remember a stable and prosperous economy. Sure not as strong as the 90's, but still pretty damn good. So minus the controversial wars in the Middle East and Hurricane Katrina provided if you lived in that region, most kids my age didn't seem to have a problem with Bush. It was really around in mid-late 2007, with the pop of the Housing Bubble, The Surge in Iraq, The Democrats winning Congress, The Great Recession, and election of Obama, where that started to change.

For my high school years in the early 10's, in a pretty diverse school of people from different racial, ethnic, economic, and various other backgrounds, it was pretty divided. I would say half of the school hated Obama and missed Bush, while the other half loved Obama and were glad Bush was gone (and then you have guys like me who cannot stand either of them  ;D). It wasn't really when I started my Senior year of high school when the divide was actually starting to subside in favor of most actually liking Obama. I think there were a lot factors like us finally coming of age and now learning different viewpoints then the ones our parents instilled into us and or the improving economy under Obama.

All in all guys my age who are now Sophomores in College are pretty Liberal for the most part, however unlike Older Millennials it seems like Younger Millennials like myself and a few others are still a bit more skeptical about both political parties. Hence why Older Millennials seem more kin on Hillary Clinton, they are familiar with Clinton because of their awesome childhoods in the 90's and of course her longtime established career in Washington. While Younger Millennials seem more interested in Bernie Sanders because unlike Clinton, he does not repersent the economic and political establishment and is technically an Independent.

So like the divide between Older Boomers born from 1946-1954 being more Liberal and Younger Boomers (aka Generation Jones) born from 1955-1964 being more conservative, Older Millennials born from 1982-1991 are Very Liberal and seem to be huge supporters of the Democratic Party regardless of some of the party's faults while Younger Millennials born from 1992-2000 (although this is subject to change, at the moment it would be more accurate to say 1992-1997/8) are also Very Liberal but because we're old enough to remember the turbulent Bush years and we came of age during the Lacking Obama Years we seem to not trust either political party.

Although this is just my own theory on the subject at hand your free to have your own


I think I'll have to rep for the 92/93/94 borns and say we came of age when Obama was still a very popular president  ;D actually, his net approval rating is pretty much zero, but much higher among youth, so I'm not sure if even younger (1995-97 aka current voting age) people dislike him all that much. I can see where you're getting at with the antiestablishment political streak though. I think it has more to do with the Trayvon Martin shootings and Citizens United ruling, which would make it a more contemporary movement in general and not just a late millennial thing. I mean, it's not exactly 1992-1998 borns lining up to Trump and Cruz rallies lol. Most young Republicans would probably be in Rand/Ron Paul camp.

@99kid - it's one thing to "remember" it,  I mean I remember 1999 when Clinton was president and he loved two people at the same time but I love my mom and my dad at the same time so what the hell's the big deal? I think if you didn't utter the words "F Bush" or "Cheney has 6 letters in his name for a reason" or didn't jam it out to American Idiot by Green Day then your millennial credentials are a bit iffy. Also anyone else remember this "Time to bomb Saddam" flash video going around in the early 2000s? https://youtu.be/SBKWQ41dpVc ;D

I'm not sure if I'm okay with the "Founders" name for Gen Z. I mean they haven't really found anything. Homelanders can fit for late millennials like me too. My childhood was basically 9/11, Afghanistan War, Iraq War etc. (although I do remember a time where this wasn't the norm)  So I'm not sure if it fits for 2001+ borns, I mean ISIS doesn't even come close to Iraq war levels bad yet.

I meant I remembered most of the things from 2005 on, but I was not saying I was a Millennial. I know I am Gen Z but I do remember the Great Recession from 2007-2009, I remember being in my third grade classroom watching President Obama's inauguration in 2009. I remember our house plummeting in value from $275,000 to $180,000 in a span of three years, knew alot of my friends whose parents had to foreclose. I knew Bush was not well liked but I don't think I ever knew about those videos or phrases. I remember Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike, Gustav, Bill, Earl, Irene and Sandy very well because I was a weather obsessed kid who watched the Weather Channel 24/7 and Hurricane Ike hit our area with hurricane force winds and we didn't have power for four days. Im not saying I am a Millennial(We could argue on my older brothers who were born in 96' and 97' but I think they are early Gen Z) but I know I am Gen Z.  I also disagree with the new name that MTV made for us... The Founders???? What has our generation founded yet??

I meant I remembered most of the things from 2005 on, but I was not saying I was a Millennial. I know I am Gen Z but I do remember the Great Recession from 2007-2009, I remember being in my third grade classroom watching President Obama's inauguration in 2009. I remember our house plummeting in value from $275,000 to $180,000 in a span of three years, knew alot of my friends whose parents had to foreclose. I knew Bush was not well liked but I don't think I ever knew about those videos or phrases. I remember Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike, Gustav, Bill, Earl, Irene and Sandy very well because I was a weather obsessed kid who watched the Weather Channel 24/7 and Hurricane Ike hit our area with hurricane force winds and we didn't have power for four days. Im not saying I am a Millennial(We could argue on my older brothers who were born in 96' and 97' but I think they are early Gen Z) but I know I am Gen Z.  I also disagree with the new name that MTV made for us... The Founders???? What has our generation founded yet??


Honestly, you can't really trust anything MTV says nowadays. I mean, they gave Laci Green her own freaking show (on youtube, but it's still a huge mistake). If that isn't a sign of MTV's lack of sanity, I don't know what is.

The way Goldman Sachs splits up the generations is in-line with much of this thread.
http://www.today.com/series/holidays-made-easy/buying-bit-too-much-yourself-holiday-heres-how-cut-back-t59391

I like the name and it makes sense since generations are becoming more diverse and socially accepting. However my favorite is probably Homelanders because it represents the generation that never knew a world where the U.S wasn't at war with someone, when the economy was stable, and life before technology started to consume us like today. Most people who are fans of the Homelanders name typically start the generation in or around 2001, and if you apply all of those things I mentioned above, most 2001 babies would only have a vague recollection of the things I mentioned


I agree. I  say one day when the Z generation are defined much better in the future, the names Homeland and Plurals will absolutely describe them.


I think I'll have to rep for the 92/93/94 borns and say we came of age when Obama was still a very popular president  ;D actually, his net approval rating is pretty much zero, but much higher among youth, so I'm not sure if even younger (1995-97 aka current voting age) people dislike him all that much. I can see where you're getting at with the antiestablishment political streak though. I think it has more to do with the Trayvon Martin shootings and Citizens United ruling, which would make it a more contemporary movement in general and not just a late millennial thing. I mean, it's not exactly 1992-1998 borns lining up to Trump and Cruz rallies lol. Most young Republicans would probably be in Rand/Ron Paul camp.

I'm not sure if I'm okay with the "Founders" name for Gen Z. I mean they haven't really found anything. Homelanders can fit for late millennials like me too. My childhood was basically 9/11, Afghanistan War, Iraq War etc. (although I do remember a time where this wasn't the norm)  So I'm not sure if it fits for 2001+ borns, I mean ISIS doesn't even come close to Iraq war levels bad yet.


I say the people in our age range are in between both political parties or independent. The reason is that it's becoming difficult on who should be president after Obama leaves. Right now, we have people saying that Bernie should be elected as he has good intentions and would lead the country much better than Hillary; however, some others have said that his polices are outdated and shouldn't be elected. Hillary would have been a great candidate to elect for president; however, after seeing on the news regarding her issues about the email and the attacks, now people are hoping that she doesn't be president. Then we have Trump (who clearly shouldn't be president), Carson, Jeb, Cruz and Rubio who all on the Republican side. After hearing about their ideas about what they are going to to when they are elected, they shouldn't be either as they could bring down the country in some way. Next year will be a tough election on who to vote for.

I agree, they shouldn't be called that as there was already a founding generation of which who were the first generation of the U.S. and that they haven't found anything to begin with. I say the best names for that generation are Plurals and Digital Natives as they describe them being very diverse and that they are tech addicts.


I meant I remembered most of the things from 2005 on, but I was not saying I was a Millennial. I know I am Gen Z but I do remember the Great Recession from 2007-2009, I remember being in my third grade classroom watching President Obama's inauguration in 2009. I remember our house plummeting in value from $275,000 to $180,000 in a span of three years, knew alot of my friends whose parents had to foreclose. I knew Bush was not well liked but I don't think I ever knew about those videos or phrases. I remember Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike, Gustav, Bill, Earl, Irene and Sandy very well because I was a weather obsessed kid who watched the Weather Channel 24/7 and Hurricane Ike hit our area with hurricane force winds and we didn't have power for four days. Im not saying I am a Millennial(We could argue on my older brothers who were born in 96' and 97' but I think they are early Gen Z) but I know I am Gen Z.  I also disagree with the new name that MTV made for us... The Founders???? What has our generation founded yet??


Well you could be considered a Millennial in the future. Right now, the generation somehow begins at 1995, but it should really start with 2001 as that's the first year in the 21st century and as OF pointed out that they don't remember a time before rapid technology, no wars or when the economy was decent.

I think I'll have to rep for the 92/93/94 borns and say we came of age when Obama was still a very popular president  ;D actually, his net approval rating is pretty much zero, but much higher among youth, so I'm not sure if even younger (1995-97 aka current voting age) people dislike him all that much. I can see where you're getting at with the antiestablishment political streak though. I think it has more to do with the Trayvon Martin shootings and Citizens United ruling, which would make it a more contemporary movement in general and not just a late millennial thing. I mean, it's not exactly 1992-1998 borns lining up to Trump and Cruz rallies lol. Most young Republicans would probably be in Rand/Ron Paul camp.

@99kid - it's one thing to "remember" it,  I mean I remember 1999 when Clinton was president and he loved two people at the same time but I love my mom and my dad at the same time so what the hell's the big deal? I think if you didn't utter the words "F Bush" or "Cheney has 6 letters in his name for a reason" or didn't jam it out to American Idiot by Green Day then your millennial credentials are a bit iffy. Also anyone else remember this "Time to bomb Saddam" flash video going around in the early 2000s? https://youtu.be/SBKWQ41dpVc ;D

I'm not sure if I'm okay with the "Founders" name for Gen Z. I mean they haven't really found anything. Homelanders can fit for late millennials like me too. My childhood was basically 9/11, Afghanistan War, Iraq War etc. (although I do remember a time where this wasn't the norm)  So I'm not sure if it fits for 2001+ borns, I mean ISIS doesn't even come close to Iraq war levels bad yet.


Honestly I would go as far and say that having a vivid memory of the Bush Years such as, his initial public disdain in 2000-2001, his surge in popularity post 9/11, and his downfall in most of his second term, are pretty key events to have to be considered a Millennial. Especially since he was the POTUS during when Millennials were Kids, Tweens, Teens, and some young adults.


I agree. I  say one day when the Z generation are defined much better in the future, the names Homeland and Plurals will absolutely describe them.

I say the people in our age range are in between both political parties or independent. The reason is that it's becoming difficult on who should be president after Obama leaves. Right now, we have people saying that Bernie should be elected as he has good intentions and would lead the country much better than Hillary; however, some others have said that his polices are outdated and shouldn't be elected. Hillary would have been a great candidate to elect for president; however, after seeing on the news regarding her issues about the email and the attacks, now people are hoping that she doesn't be president. Then we have Trump (who clearly shouldn't be president), Carson, Jeb, Cruz and Rubio who all on the Republican side. After hearing about their ideas about what they are going to to when they are elected, they shouldn't be either as they could bring down the country in some way. Next year will be a tough election on who to vote for.

I agree, they shouldn't be called that as there was already a founding generation of which who were the first generation of the U.S. and that they haven't found anything to begin with. I say the best names for that generation are Plurals and Digital Natives as they describe them being very diverse and that they are tech addicts.

Well you could be considered a Millennial in the future. Right now, the generation somehow begins at 1995, but it should really start with 2001 as that's the first year in the 21st century and as OF pointed out that they don't remember a time before rapid technology, no wars or when the economy was decent.


Yep, these generational marks seem to change over time. Heck theres this post I saw a couple of months ago of people suggesting Gen Y Should begin in 1974, 1975 or 1976! This was back in 2004, and I think we could all agree that 74'-76' borns are the basically the epitome of Gen X.

http://bornin1976.tribe.net/thread/8cbe9788-9bd6-4244-b787-c6da6d34146d

Hence why when I see articles saying that Gen Z began in 1994, 1995, or 1996 I take it with a grain of salt

Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-2001
Homelanders: 2002-present

I've been thinking about it and when I think of the old definition, I think "Millennials" came to refer to the teens and twentysomethings of 2008, with Obama getting elected and the whole youth culture around it. That would be 1979 - 1994, which actually *was*  the original definition of Gen Y. The core being the really young ones who could actually vote for him and were probably on a college campus at the time (18 - 24), that would be 1984 - 1990.

But '79 and '80 seem to be Gen X years to most people now, and that definition definitely feels to restrictive; it's not like the youth culture that peddled the Obama movement lived and died in 2008. It seems you get a much better definition if you stratify to people who are twentysomethings while Obama is in office. That would be basically 1981 - 1996, and throw '97'/'98, the legal adults under Obama as cusp.

Idk, maybe it's because it feels weird to call 2001 a Gen Y year. Someone from that year would probably have more in common with my sister born 2005. She even asked me what 9/11 was after the Paris attacks, that's a pretty Gen Z thing to say LOL.

I've been thinking about it and when I think of the old definition, I think "Millennials" came to refer to the teens and twentysomethings of 2008, with Obama getting elected and the whole youth culture around it. That would be 1979 - 1994, which actually *was*  the original definition of Gen Y. The core being the really young ones who could actually vote for him and were probably on a college campus at the time (18 - 24), that would be 1984 - 1990.

But '79 and '80 seem to be Gen X years to most people now, and that definition definitely feels to restrictive; it's not like the youth culture that peddled the Obama movement lived and died in 2008. It seems you get a much better definition if you stratify to people who are twentysomethings while Obama is in office. That would be basically 1981 - 1996, and throw '97'/'98, the legal adults under Obama as cusp.

Idk, maybe it's because it feels weird to call 2001 a Gen Y year. Someone from that year would probably have more in common with my sister born 2005. She even asked me what 9/11 was after the Paris attacks, that's a pretty Gen Z thing to say LOL.


I agree with this 100%

Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-2001
Homelanders: 2002-present


Yeah this seems pretty legit

I do not believe in the "generation cutoff points". I don't think a year or two will mean a lot when it comes to differences, and I think that birth years could be skewed and sometimes not be the best way to go by. For example, someone made Gen Y 1981-1996. The experiences of someone born in 1981 will be drastically different to that of someone born in 1996. However, the differences between someone born in 1996 and 2011 would just be as drastic of a difference. In reality, it's only a gradual change, regardless of where one puts the cutoff point at.

For the late 90s babies, people sometimes group them with the other millennials from the rest of the 90s and most of the 80s, other times people put them in the same generation as the 2000s/2010s babies. I personally consider those late 90s babies millennials, making the people born in the 90s completely millennial.

I do not believe in the "generation cutoff points". I don't think a year or two will mean a lot when it comes to differences, and I think that birth years could be skewed and sometimes not be the best way to go by. For example, someone made Gen Y 1981-1996. The experiences of someone born in 1981 will be drastically different to that of someone born in 1996. However, the differences between someone born in 1996 and 2011 would just be as drastic of a difference. In reality, it's only a gradual change, regardless of where one puts the cutoff point at.



The experiences are different, but childhood is not really relevant here. It's more about how they behave when they're adults, and when it comes to 1981 borns and 1996 borns, we know at the very least that Obamamania is a common theme

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html?_r=0

Not surprising, given that Millennials grew up with (Bush 41), Clinton, Bush 43, and then Obama in that order.

We also know marketers like to divide them up as well, with Millennials known for being poor and stingy while Boomers tend to have more money than they know what to do with, so if I was adveritising a vacation to Australia, I'd probably concentrate on older demographics. On the other hand, if I were making a video game or other tech product, Millennials are the way to go. You're right in that it's not so clear-cut, and people have also have varied personalities that go beyond whatever generation they're in, but I think you can find some common patters, like the voting records suggest.

Anybody born near the supposed threshold between two generations is naturally going to share plenty of traits with both.  James Rolfe, born in 1980, for example, was ahead of Generation X in a lot of ways because of his ongoing love of the Super Nintendo and pioneering role in YouTube, but his musical tastes are predominantly hard rock bands from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s; he hates the type of pop music people associate with millennials and certainly hasn't come out as a nu-metal fan, either.  Generations are really better described as focal points of cultural influence, rather than cliques that you're simply either a part of or not.

It's probably not so much traits as the content of the pop culture during teenage years that characterizes each generation.

I've been thinking about it and when I think of the old definition, I think "Millennials" came to refer to the teens and twentysomethings of 2008, with Obama getting elected and the whole youth culture around it. That would be 1979 - 1994, which actually *was*  the original definition of Gen Y. The core being the really young ones who could actually vote for him and were probably on a college campus at the time (18 - 24), that would be 1984 - 1990.

I was also technically a teen when Obama got elected.

Anybody born near the supposed threshold between two generations is naturally going to share plenty of traits with both.  James Rolfe, born in 1980, for example, was ahead of Generation X in a lot of ways because of his ongoing love of the Super Nintendo and pioneering role in YouTube, but his musical tastes are predominantly hard rock bands from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s; he hates the type of pop music people associate with millennials and certainly hasn't come out as a nu-metal fan, either.  Generations are really better described as focal points of cultural influence, rather than cliques that you're simply either a part of or not.


I agree 100%. Like what I said before, it's all a gradual change.

IMHO, these are the cups for each generation

Silent Generation/Boomers: 1940-1945
Boomers/Gen X: 1961-1964
Gen X/Gen Y: 1977-1984, possibly even up to 1986
Gen Y/Gen Z: 1994-2000

I was also technically a teen when Obama got elected.


Oh true. I meant high school age so early '95 would probably be included in the "old" definition. It's not the definition I agree with though.


Anybody born near the supposed threshold between two generations is naturally going to share plenty of traits with both.  James Rolfe, born in 1980, for example, was ahead of Generation X in a lot of ways because of his ongoing love of the Super Nintendo and pioneering role in YouTube, but his musical tastes are predominantly hard rock bands from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s; he hates the type of pop music people associate with millennials and certainly hasn't come out as a nu-metal fan, either.  Generations are really better described as focal points of cultural influence, rather than cliques that you're simply either a part of or not.


I agree with you on pop culture influence stuff, but I think some adulthood life would matter too, no? At least that's the thing most marketers or demographers would be interested in.

Baby boomers = people who are about to go into retirement, which will have a huge effect on the workforce. A lot of them also lost their savings in the Great Recession and are about to go into retirement with absolutely nothing saved, creating a retirement crisis.

Generation X = the "sandwich generation" stuck in between taking care of their elderly parents and their young kids. They're spread really thin. Usually in middle management of most companies, but not at the top because the top is still occupied with old Boomers who refuse to retire because they haven't saved up.

Millennials = those mostly still fresh out of university or just finding their place in the job market; also includes people who've been somewhat established for a while now. They're racked by student debt and keep delaying the rites of passage of adulthood such as owning a house or owning a car. Usually working poor-paying jobs despite being well educated. They work at lower rungs of most companies. On the oher hand, the huge tech startup culture is lead almost entirely by Millennials. More likely to want to break traditions and usher in new ones, but that seems to be a youth thing in general.

I agree with you on pop culture influence stuff, but I think some adulthood life would matter too, no? At least that's the thing most marketers or demographers would be interested in.

Well, people born around the very beginning of Generation Y would have graduated from high school amidst the Dot Com bubble and thus would have relied on the Internet for work than Gen-X'ers, though they wouldn't be quite as savvy with social media as young millennials and Z'ers.  I think the first two decades of somebody's life is particularly pivotal in shaping their place in the generation cycle because it's during this period where they develop their understanding of how the world works and what they perceive of it.  Usually, these influences stick with somebody for life.  What happens afterwards is a matter of history.  Generation X's arc, for one thing, is still incomplete, since they're only just entering middle age and won't be the "elder" class for at least a couple more decades.

It's probably not so much traits as the content of the pop culture during teenage years that characterizes each generation.


There's more to a person's life than just their teenage years.

There's more to a person's life than just their teenage years.

Agreed!

We also know marketers like to divide them up as well, with Millennials known for being poor and stingy while Boomers tend to have more money than they know what to do with, so if I was adveritising a vacation to Australia, I'd probably concentrate on older demographics. On the other hand, if I were making a video game or other tech product, Millennials are the way to go. You're right in that it's not so clear-cut, and people have also have varied personalities that go beyond whatever generation they're in, but I think you can find some common patters, like the voting records suggest.


It's more than just that. I agree with the vacation thing, but I think almost all Millennials are past their video gaming days. Video games are mostly a thing made for middle schoolers (peak video gaming years). Also music is typically aimed at the 14-24 age range. Movies and television typically have wider appeal. Your favorite movie and television show can come out when you're 40. There does tend to be a "minimal age limit". A show like Friends or Sienfeld, or a more modern example, Two Broke Girls, tends to want a 14 or 15 year old at the youngest and goes up by several years.

It's more than just that. I agree with the vacation thing, but I think almost all Millennials are past their video gaming days. Video games are mostly a thing made for middle schoolers (peak video gaming years).

You do realize that the average gamer today is like 35 years old?  This isn't the late 80s.

You do realize that the average gamer today is like 35 years old?  This isn't the late 80s.


My grandpa says that culture has been in the gutter for 30 years and that we've been stuck in the year 1980 ever since.

It's more than just that. I agree with the vacation thing, but I think almost all Millennials are past their video gaming days. Video games are mostly a thing made for middle schoolers (peak video gaming years). Also music is typically aimed at the 14-24 age range. Movies and television typically have wider appeal. Your favorite movie and television show can come out when you're 40. There does tend to be a "minimal age limit". A show like Friends or Sienfeld, or a more modern example, Two Broke Girls, tends to want a 14 or 15 year old at the youngest and goes up by several years.


No way Jose. People my age and the 80s borns are still playing video games. You might not think it if you browse this forum because we like to hate modern things ( ;D), but the vast majority of Millennials still buy video games. The average age range on NeoGAF is easily 20-40 year olds, especially people in their late 20s/early 30s. Actually, one of my profs born in the sometime in the 70s (he was in university in 1997 is all I know) still plays video games. He even recommended me a book, "Masters of Doom", a book interviewing the developers of Doom basically. Even late Gen X is into video games.

There's more to a person's life than just their teenage years.


When it comes to defining generations, pop culture is usually the first thing that is mentioned. In fact, that appears to be the main point of this board.

And when one looks at older generations, the period in which pop culture has much influence involves teenage years.

And when one looks at older generations, the period in which pop culture has much influence involves teenage years.


But it doesn't exclusively involve the teenage years like you say it does.

But it doesn't exclusively involve the teenage years like you say it does.


It has much influence over the definition, as seen in this forum.

If we use other indicators, then definitions of each generation will vary across various countries.