From what I understand, isn't this a bit misleading, historically? My thoughts/belief was that as generations age, they move towards the right. That said, wouldn't this be less relevant in the years to come? Or is it that this is a significantly higher percentage of this demographic than previous years? Conversely, couldn't this just as well be a marker of Grampy Bernie's efficacy to pull young voters to the voting booths? Well... I guess that last bit may align with the point of the quote. My point being: is it more plausible this is an isolated incident, or does this percentage stand out in comparison to percentage of aging demographics over time in previous elections? The implications, if true, are we'll likely see more 'socialist' candidates in the next few races?Moreover, any Sanders-type candidate thinking about running for president in the next couple decades should be heartened by this fact: The Vermont senator’s most supportive group was young voters. From the Iowa caucuses, where Sanders won 86 percent of 17-to-24-year-olds, to New York, where he won 81 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds, Sanders did considerably better with young voters than he did with the electorate as a whole. He did better with them in many of these states than Obama did eight years ago.
The parallel is clouded by the fact that going back to McGovern, there's been a conscious choice by the Republican Party to link social conservativism with fiscal conservativism. People forget that Nixon started the EPA as well as the DEA and that Vietnam was a Democratic war. It's true that it's easier to support higher taxes when you aren't paying them but I'm not sure that the arc towards social conservativism as we age is nearly as curved.
Ahh. I see, so you're advocating the fact that party standards (or in this case candidate(s)) are more fluid over time? Thus, a reformed right in, for argument's sake, 2020 could conceivably pull some numbers from today's "86 percent of 17-to-24-year-olds"?
If it's a generally accepted truth that anything and everything said on a campaign trail is an empty promise (A lie), why should it matter if Bernie pulled Hillary to the left on anything? This isn't unique to this particular election cycle either, so don't just wrap this particular question in with the rest of my sour grapes.
It's more complicated than that. Some things said on the campaign trail are lies, some things are sincere but aren't going to happen because the other side has enough pull to prevent them, some are sincere and actually happen in a way that isn't satisfying to anyone because democracy demands compromise. Either way, what we get is somewhere in the same neighborhood of what our politicians are talking about, because politicians who completely contradict what they promised don't get reelected, so if democratic candidates have to talk like members of a left-ish party instead of a right-wing-but-not-completely-evil party they will eventually have to stop being complete capitalist sockpuppets. This happened in the other direction with Reagan. Politics moves painfully slowly, but it moves.
So you genuinely believe that Hillary will enact some policies, or will choose to NOT enact some policies, based on Sanders endorsement and concerns about re-election? Edit* I believe that she will continue as she pleases. It's working for her so far, there's no reason for her to not stay the course she has plotted. She has the support of wall street, now she has the support of those Sanders supporters that follow his endorsement/are loyal to the party. Her only opposition comes from people like me, and trump supporters.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if being a more progressive politician is what it takes for democratic candidates to get elected, democratic candidates will be more progressive politicians. I assume all politicians to be the same kind of egomaniacs you do, and that they will pander to whoever they have to pander to flatter themselves with a position of power. I suspect it will take a few more elections with strong challenges from the left to see any real shift, but if less-malicious-than-the-other-right-wing-party stops being the way to win elections then the Democrats will drift back to the left.
So, to make sure we're both on the same page. 1. Sanders endorsement of HRC will not cause any substantive change in her actions as President. 2. The one change that HAS been made, is that the script that Dems are forced to recite (the platform) includes lines about free college for poor people, among other things. Do we agree?
It's a generally-accepted truth that campaign promises are things that the candidate will fight for, not necessarily win. The effort of that fight is certainly debated fiercely, but to say that it's "generally accepted" that all campaign promises are empty and made without cost is to say that, yet again, you refuse to pay attention to the process so you can feel self-righteous about it. It's a question you shouldn't be asking, though. I mean... Here's the thing, bub. We get that you want to be all WATB about this shit but the way you carry on? it's like you're insisting that the sour grapes are the only thing you want to eat.This isn't unique to this particular election cycle either, so don't just wrap this particular question in with the rest of my sour grapes.
Allow me to rephrase. It's a generally accepted truth that the majority of campaign promises will not be fulfilled. And I never said without cost, though maybe that was implied. Assuming that, why does it matter that Hillary was 'pulled left' on any given issue when it's likely that progress on that issue won't be made? And if she is being 'pulled left' in any substantial way, wouldn't that make her less likely to actually enact any kind of change at all, given the republican domination of the house and senate? From where I'm sitting there are sour grapes (Grumble Grumble, Hillary's gonna be president, wish it could'a been bernie) and there's grape-shaped hand grenades (ALL PRAISE GOD EMPEROR TRUMP), and that's it. And I'm looked at funny for going 'gee these grapes are sour, definitely don't eat them' when everybody else is unenthusiastically picking through the pile looking for maybe not-so-sour grapes. First and foremost, I wanted departure from the status quo for this election. That's not happening. I completely understand the pragmatic argument of 'HIllary isn't that bad, basically 4 more years of Obama, and Trump is way worse.' I'll take a shot in the foot over a shot in the head. But don't tell me to be happy about being shot in the foot, and extol the virtues of having shot feet.
No one is telling you to be happy. I am not happy. The chip on my shoulder is probably older than you. Nothing short of the second coming of Robespierre would make me happy. Politics doesn't make anyone whose net worth is under 10 digits happy. But in the 90s we couldn't even get shitty national healthcare, and in to 2010s we managed to at least get shitty national healthcare. We have a long way to go before we can tell the insurance industry to fuck itself and get halfway humane national healthcare, but we have made some progress. It happens. It happens slowly, and it happens more in spite of the people in office than because of them, but it happens.
Generally accepted by who? Nobody would give campaign promises any weight if we didn't expect the candidate to at least make an effort. It's not like a politician - any politician - can say "Yeah, I know I campaigned on a $15 minimum wage but c'mon. You know I wasn't serious about that, right?" It matters that Hilary was "pulled left" on any given issue because that means she will be judged on her ability to deliver promises that she would not otherwise have made. You're not dumb. This is elementary shit. You understand it except when you decide you don't feel like it. Like how you decide that maybe there's something to eat other than grapes (sour or otherwise). "Gee these grapes are sour, definitely don't eat them" but there's nothing else to eat, dude. So you can have arguments about the finer points of these grapes over that grapes or you can say "WAKE UP SHEEPLE THE ONLY TRUE FOOD IS DODO FILET" and then get salty when you get called on your BS. I'll say this: your approach isn't healthy. By steadfastly insisting that all alternatives are bad, you create a world for yourself in which you have no agency, no alternatives, and no control over your destiny. How's that working out for you?
Charisma plays a huge factor in it. He has a good pitch, there are things you can feel good about with his presidency. I can simultaneously say that there was a lot of hope in his campaign, and admit that he was a dick. I'm as shocked as anybody a former stoner would narc so hard.
Not especially. Hillary has more enemies, more skeletons in the closet, and she's far less charismatic. Obama has more sugar to balance out the bitter truth of his crackdowns on medical marijuana, extra-legal drone strikes, broken promises. If we must have a crook, let's have a competent one. If we must have an entertainer, let's have a competent one. She's neither. Edit* She does have one good quality. She is a damn effective politician for 2016 America.
The way that people used to come to power, and what they did when they were in power, where it has changed, it has mostly changed for the better. Don't mistake what 'ought to be' for 'what was'; in most cases, we don't want 'what was'. Also, don't believe that 'corporate greed' has anything to do with our troubles. Every representative government is riding the tiger of globalization. Not one country was going to miss out the action as we moved to a world of investment banking, and no electorate was going to sit back and vote for leaders that were protectionist. You millennials were born between the rock of global debt and the hard place of baby boomer liabilities. The U.S.'s biggest risk right now is a continuation of a neoliberal Supreme Court and inexperienced leadership as we head into an era of financial upheaval and right-wing ascendance.
Could you explain how the Supreme Court continues to be neoliberal, or started in the first place? Is the Citizens United decision a neoliberal decision? And "inexperienced leadership" ... I imagine the cause for this is a rotating set of public officials, always running for reelection. What's the remedy?
Obama came to the presidency having held office for two fucking years. In 1978, Hilary Clinton was already the governor's wife and had been a political operative for more than a decade. Obama in 1978? For Barack Obama to have accumulated the baggage Hilary Clinton has, he'd need to stay in some form of office or other for another 30 years. I get the "non-charismatic" argument. And I'm a big Obama booster. But you fuckin' kids refuse to wrap your heads around the fact that Hilary Clinton was fighting republican hit squads since the nixon era.
Im well aware of her legacy, I don't believe it'a a boon. Much as I despise the modern Republican party they are not actually the Sith Empire. And much as everyone else seems to have a hard on for them, the Democrats are not the rebel alliance. Donkeys and Elephants are two special interest groups that pursue their own goals. Sometimes those goals are antagonistic, sometimes they are not. And the cheery fellow in that picture was harder on pot than BushBut you fuckin' kids refuse to wrap your heads around the fact that Hilary Clinton was fighting republican hit squads since the nixon era.
So which is it? Does Obama have "more sugar" or was he "harder on pot than Bush?" Because this is the fight you want to have - in other words, whichever one allows you to be a bitter-ass sad sack after someone else points out that your arguments are groundless. So is Hilary Clinton an incompetent crook? Or a "damn effective politician?" 'cuz I'm not sure how you can be both incompetent and "damn effective." Your every political post for the past several months has been "I'm mad because reasons." Those reasons, however, are chimeric, nonsensical and largely groundless. Politics is a cynical pursuit - a true cynic can at least recognize the battlefield. You just grab talking points out of your bucket of mad libs and try to pretend that someone else introduced the phrase "Sith Empire" into the discussion. You're better than this. If you're going to come to play, come correct... because believe it or not I don't really have a lot of strong emotions about anyone in the race but I have zero patience for intellectual laziness parading around like injured idealism.