This argument doesn’t have to be about age. I know a very liberal guy in his 50s who constantly rails against Hillary and, if I had to guess, will be voting for Stein, if anyone. I know a woman who’s even older who thinks the same way. Both are impervious to logic and reason.
Maybe our ire should be directed towards the “all or nothing” type of voter of any age rather than just the young people who, after all, will mostly be voting for Hillary.
No.
Most demographic groups are largely the same people over time. Were you black in 2012? You’re still black now. Hispanic? Asian? Ditto. College-educated? There’s some new ones with each graduating class, but for the most part the same people.
But 18-24 year olds? They’re not the same people. You can’t say if they’re supporting Hillary as strongly as they supported Obama, because 57% of them couldn’t even vote in 2012.
The 18-24 year olds who voted for Obama in 2008 are now 26-32 year olds, and apparently supporting Hillary now just as strongly as they supported Obama then. The 18-24 year olds who voted for Obama in 2012 - 57% of them are 25+ now, and again, are apparently ready to vote for Hillary the way they voted for Obama. So you apparently have a beef with 22-24 year olds, plus a bunch of first-time voters who didn’t support anyone four years ago, so it can’t be said that they’re not doing now what they did then.
[In a nutshell]Wellllllll, I loves my Nanna, she is the bestest. But for President??? I mean Pop-pop is cray-cray all day-day, I ain’t voting for HIM! But I just can’t get excited about voting for Nanna either. Sigh. Don’t we have anybody, y’know, more…um…with it?[/In a nutshell]
Interesting post. I still think it comes down to people don’t like being lectured at, bullied, condescended to, etc. Thats what the left is having a hard time with. Trump is a reaction to trigger warnings and special snowflake syndrome. People want respect. They don’t want a formal debate and to be proved “wrong.”
The way I deal with people in my personal life with regards to politics is that I’m willing to listen to what they got to say and show them respect for their participation in self-governance. My children are young and we live in a conservative area and I hear them parrot right wing talking points and Hillary is a witch etc. I do my best to teach them that they need to make up their own minds.
The process is what’s important.
Instant runoff voting would help. Might’ve even prevented Trump from winning the nomination.
Erm, no, like I said, the people at 538 used the data to show a relative comparison between demographic groups. They had a purpose in mind, you’re trying to manipulate the data to prove a point. A point which, I might add, is refuted by multiple other surveys that people have posted in this very thread. So you’re cherry-picking AND manipulating data.
Look, the WaPo survey shows 93% of blacks plan to vote for Clinton, but that only includes “likely voters.” I don’t know what they’re counting as likely voters, but the other survey made no such distinction. WaPo gave their likely voters 4 choices, the GenForward survey gave their respondents seven. 7% of black respondents 18-30 said that they plan on voting for someone else. Who? And how do you compare that to the 93% of likely voters in the WaPo survey who didn’t have the option to tick “someone else”? 14% of black respondents 18-30 said they didn’t plan on voting at all, but you’re comparing that to 93% of black likely voters. How does that make any sense?
There are plenty of surveys that break up respondents by age and demographics, and some have been posted here. Use those instead.
People who don’t like being bullied shouldn’t support a bully for President. Just sayin’.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that, RT.
What I’m seeing in this thread is a variant of the ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas’ line of reasoning. What that book boiled down to is:
- I know what I think is best
- People in Kansas don’t agree with me
- What the hell is wrong with them?
It presupposes an outcome and therefore sets an adversarial relationship between the analyst and those being…well…analyzed. There’s a fallacy in there from a political point of view.
It also assumes that those being analyzed - in this thread attacked - don’t have a grip on their own best interests. In every situation of which I’m aware the proper answer to that attitude is to tell the one doing the accusing to take a hike.
It is possible - you gotta admit it’s possible - for another person or cohort to disagree with your postulates and reach different decisions. That may be disastrous from your point of view but it doesn’t make them stupid, selfish or whatever.
Hey, I think Trump is a train wreck and would be horrible for the country. That said, more flies with honey than vinegar, you know. And this thread is extremely vinegary.
:dubious:
I hope you take this as an opportunity to reflect on the value of knowing yourself, and apply that reflection to the quality of your guesses about other people. If you can’t see your own grammatical and orthographic errors, are you better at seeing the errors in your understanding of others?
Millennials ain’t your allies. They didn’t sign on to your army. They didn’t take an oath. They didn’t put on a uniform. They aren’t on your team. There are no teams.
There are, instead, coalitions of people who are pursuing similar aims. Generally they treat one another with respect if they want the coalitions to hold. But they are under no obligation, legal or moral, to maintain a coalition that they’ve decided doesn’t serve their ends.
Make no mistake: I absolutely want everyone to vote for Clinton. But your way of arguing for it is terrible, both illogical and counterproductive.
Sure there are teams. They are not as well organized as they ideally could be, but they are there no matter how much you try to deny them. They even have official registration with the state in most places (how many teams can say that?) along with national committees, state and county branches, automatic ballot access, etc.
Furthermore, you are picking a strange time in history to make this claim. People are increasingly chafing against actually saying they belong to one party or another, that is true. But acting like it? Pew has a detailed report on how well-sorted the parties have become in recent years, and how many more people now follow one party or the other down the line on pretty much every issue. And The Fix at the WaPo has a nice series of graphs showing how split ticket voting has all but disappeared just in the past decade.
Bringing up “legal” obligations is a canard–a straw man, really. But a moral obligation? You bet your sweet ass there is.
I can only assume then that you also abhor the way President Obama is campaigning (I obviously do not):
Whether you are personally comfortable with this approach or not, it must actually be, contrary to your claim, both logical and productive, because they have actual number-crunching geniuses planning all this stuff with the help of massive amounts of granular research on voter behavior and state of the art computer modelling.
Good point. *Great *point. You got me there. :o
Absolutely. I have one of those in my own family: my mother. She is in her seventies, and she was voting for Ralph Nader back when few people knew he was running (1996). She actually served on a board with Hillary Clinton back in the '80s and had a positive impression of her then, but has come to the conclusion in the interim that she has not only sold out or whatever, but that someone has “gotten to her”. :eek: She was of course bigtime for Bernie, is hardcore against TPP, etc. Because of the things she forwards me, I have learned that the far left is doing its level best to keep up with the “alt-right” in terms of dark, convoluted and conspiratorial mutterings.
So, yes: anyone of any age or race whose sympathies lie left of center (or, arguably, even a little right of center) should be voting for Hillary. If their sympathies are significantly right of center, they may have a tough choice this time around, and I wouldn’t blame them for choosing either way (I’d just blame them for being right wingers to begin with). If they are left of center, and do anything other than vote for Hillary, they are either a fool or a traitor, probably both. And the fundamental point of this thread is that this group includes a lot of college-age kids, although there’s certainly plenty of blame to direct at Bernie Sanders for poisoning impressionable young minds. I have a feeling he knows this, and is feeling a bit sick about it, so hopefully he’ll do his best to make it right–although I’m not sure if he can get that toothpaste back in the tube.
There may be people who set up teams, but unlike the NFL or NBA, the system does not yet preclude participation by people who refuse to join teams.
…So your point is that even though people are chafing at the teams, people often vote together, so you’re sick of people who don’t vote together? Was that coherent in your head?
Slacker, I know Barack Obama. Obama is a good president of mine. Slacker, you’re no Barack Obama.
You’ll notice his lack of telling young African Americans that they need to get a clue. You’ll note the lack of calling them special snowflakes, the lack of talking about how they need to get a clue.
What he is doing is not at all what you’re doing. The main difference being, he’s leveraging his personal political capital in a way that makes his very mild chastising acceptable.
That’s not what you’re doing, to say the least. I wish you’d stop, because over and over I see you turning some of the board’s millennials further away from Clinton.
I am a boomer and there is no way in HELL I will vote for Trump and I have said
I am not happy about having to vote for Hillary the thought is making me sick ! She not up to the job she looks like crap and hasn’t been seen a lot she said she going to getting ready for the first and I personally think this more about their health . She can’t handle the stress b/c of her health issues! She had no business running again ,
If the thought of voting for her is making you sick, your health is a lot more fragile than hers :).
I’m not happy about voting for Clinton. I also wasn’t happy about voting for Clinton, Clinton, Gore (so unhappy that in a non-swing-state I didn’t even vote for him), Kerry, or any of the senators or governors I’ve ever voted for. I was pretty happy to vote for Obama, once.
I’m accustomed, at this point, to not being happy about my choices. Life is suffering. As a boomer, have you mostly been happy about your presidential choices?
Kinda repeated yourself there. But sure: if you want to stand on technicalities, he did not use that exact verbiage. He just said “this isn’t a reality show” and that he’ll be personally insulted if they don’t wake up and smell the coffee and vote the way he’s asking them to. The differences are vast. :rolleyes:
But what really amuses me is that I didn’t use the word “snowflake” either! LOL Sheesh, you might want to check that first next time. 
Remember how Democrats viciously tore into Naderites (many of them under 30 at the time) between 2000 and 2004? Remember how that backfired, got their danders up, so they gave Nader and the Greens even more votes the next time? Wait, you don’t? Oh, maybe that’s because it didn’t happen. Instead, thanks to Democrats taking the kid gloves off, Nader’s support collapsed rather than sharply rising like it did from 1996 to 2000. Shaming works, even though so many people like to insist otherwise, whether the arena is politics or public health. And until I am convinced that this fundamental property of human nature has actually changed, I’m going to keep pouring it on.
I’m curious though to hear what your alternate approach consists of. Begging and pleading? Holding your breath and staying really still and just hoping they come to their senses on their own? Or what? :dubious:
Bernie Sanders was a great marketable gimmick. A loud minority of millenials bought his schtick. Millenials are largely ignorant of the mechanics of government. They think democracy is like picking a shirt, it’s not. Unless of course you’re picking a shirt in the Soviet Union. Now that Bernie is off the rack, they are grossed out by what’s left, and it creates a disgust that just can’t be overcome. Sooner or later they might put two and two together.
It isn’t that bad, the Iraq war only cost $6 trillion dollars.
I doubt it. From the ones I know, they feel the 2 party system is way to corrupt and beholden to financial interests. Pot legalization will not fix it.
Millennials are not wrong, the system is corrupt and bought. The true reforms this country needs will never happen because they would infuriate the rich and powerful. But helping elect president Trump will not fix it.
Of course even if Sanders had been elected president, he would’ve had 0 power to enact his agenda, which would’ve demoralized a generation of voters.
It was lose/lose this election for millennials. Get Bernie and find out he is powerless, or get Hillary who they feel only offers token reform while keeping the rich/powerful in charge, or vote third party and get Trump who is a protofascist.
It’s hard to see this as anything but a partisan power grab. One question though: if we weren’t to allow people to vote because of their advanced age, why in the world would we let them hold public office? Same for SCOTUS Justices. I say we force every one of them that’s over 70 into retirement.
I agree with this proposal. Same in Congress.
This post sounds like you-know-who.