Hope to God(dess) Democrats don't drift toward becoming a "Don't walk on my lawn" Party

[Tom Rinaldo]

I remember something about generational divides. I once was embroiled in one myself back in my college years, which was way back in a former century. I still can remember the me that I was during my youth, and even now, looking back, I can honestly say that I was right more often than I was wrong. My analysis of the world was sometimes too bold in vivid contrasts and lacking in some shades of grey, but it wasn't dulled by a grudging acceptance that things are and always will be the way that they are, or at the least that they will likely be destined to remain something closely resembling the way that they were then. One special quality about youth, having been freshly shot out of a cannon, is their ability to soar and for a while at least defy the gravity of conventional wisdom that keeps so many human endeavors from ever getting off the ground.

I could have benefited from some well timed seasoned mentoring at points along my then radical path, but what I did not need was for people to tell me I was simply wrong, or that "it just isn't done that way." Fundamental change rarely comes about by continuing to do things the way they have always been done. And some times just cry out for fundamental change. It was true in my youth, and it is true today.

I don't remember a time in Democratic politics when so much of a generation was called out for being wrong, for transgressing norms, for being unrealistic, and/or for doing harm to their own cause in the political arena than I see now, except perhaps for when the same thing happened during my own youth to my own generation. I can't remember a time, since my own youth, when those who identified with a political candidate became as much the focus of political attack or scorn as was the literal candidate.

It is not just statistical noise that Bernie Sanders is so much more popular among those under 40, of every race, than he is among those over 60, of every race. It is politically profound. The implications may be messy and difficult to sort out, but this divide should not simply be glossed over or dismissed. And it sure as hell shouldn't be reduced to and belittled as representing the naivety of youth vs the wisdom of age.

[LonePirate]

1. Do people want America as it was on 11/7/2016 or do they want an America that is even better?

That seems to be the real question here. How much change do people want? Younger Americans want far more change than older Americans who seem to be perfectly pleased with simply resetting the calendar to Monday, November 7, 2016, albeit with a different candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That's a damn fine nutshell you found to park this in for easy reference. Yep.

Though I suspect many younger Americans would say that far more change is required rather than simply wanted.

[DownriverDem]

6. Right now

it looks like they want Biden.

[Autumn]

16. They do? Fancy that. Got a link to back that up?

[Happy Hoosier]

33. When a ship is sinking....

I generally want to make we patch up the hole and stabilize the ship before we start talking about renovations to the Ledo deck.

[LonePirate]

34. Some people are capable of multi-tasking. Others obviously have no desire to do both.

[Happy Hoosier]

37. Well, when there is an existential crisis...

I can’t say that I think a laser focus on that crisis is bad. That doesn’t mean other issues can’t be considered, but the focus needs to be on winning, IMO.

[The Valley Below]

2. Reading the thread title, I expected a "Bernie-bashing" thread. LOL.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I can see that. That's pretty funny

Yeah, Bernie seems to have that "grumpy" persona working for him

[DownriverDem]

5. Center/Left Country

We are a Center/Left Country. We need a Center/Left candidate. When are folks going to wake up and realize who the voters will be in November?

[LonePirate]

15. When are people going to realize we need massive change in this country and not simply a reset?

People need to ditch their fear of change. Running a center/left candidate as you suggest did not turn out so well in 2016.

[brooklynite]

22. The Center-Left candidate got more votes than the hard left candidate in the Primary

...and more votes than the hard right candidate in the General Election. As for the Electoral College, I've seen no data supporting the notion that a hard left candidate will be more competitive in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Add to which, there is the risk of a hard left candidate losing Minnesota (two center-left Senators and a center-left Governor) and Colorado (a center-left Governor, one center-left Senator and the likely election of a second center-left Senator.

Question: Where has a hard left candidate been successful in recent elections in anything other than a safe Blue State or District?

[The Mouth]

24. Not everybody agrees

"We need massive change" is an opinion. One you have a perfect right to, and one for which an argument can be made. But not a fact to be assumed.

Not everyone wants massive, deep change; not everyone thought everything was completely fucked in 2016, or thinks everything is fucked now. Some (friends and relatives of mine, for example), simply want a less sociopathic President and some moderate progress made towards some sort of practical and affordable healthcare system for most or all.

Not everyone thinks we need radical change, to assume so can be just as devastating as to assume no change is necessary.

[LonePirate]

25. Even the slightest change is radical or massive to those who want no change.

As of now, the momentum is with those who want change. Whether it is enough to dethrone those who prefer the status quo (or the recent past) remains to be seen.

[squirecam]

29. A public option

Would be a massive change.

[LonePirate]

30. A public option is simply a different seller of the same stuff we already have.

It solves nothing with regard to medical debt or bankruptcies. It offers almost little help to those who cannot afford insurance. It may be better than nothing but it offers little immediate relief for those who need it most.

[squirecam]

31. A public option would be a massive change

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2020, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

It allows for government healthcare of private individuals in competition which has never been done for those absent Medicaid or Medicare.

It might not be far enough left for you. But it still is a big change from what is done now.

[The Valley Below]

38. You speak truth.

[The Mouth]

32. True.

Let's just hope that when it is seen, the manifestation isn't a Trump victory.

I kind of hope you're right as to the momentum and outcome; I don't think so, though. Selling radical change is difficult in even the worst of financial times, and for a lot of America things aren't bad. I do think Senator Warren is probably the most knowledgeable candidate regarding the economy that either party has ever fielded, though.

Operating from the assumption that the majority of Americans want a radical change in *anything* might, or might not work, but treating it like a stone cold fact is wrong; it's an opinion, it's a possibility, it is true in some cases, not in others, and not necessarily to our advantage as a party in all circumstances. It's not a proven fact.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. Except she wasn't to the rank and file Americans who actually VOTE

Clinton has been portrayed as the radical left since I was a college Freshman in 1992. She was still the "radical left" being puppet mastered by George Soros in 2016.

The middle of the road IndiePublicans followed that bullshit line of thinking for two decades.

Mr. Soros is now being blamed for the Impeachment in the Media: https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/ten-ways-conservatives-have-used-george-soros-undermine-impeachment

What are they supposed to believe? The voters who vote only when there is something in it for them?

Are they supposed to now all of a sudden believe that true equal protection under the law, and true access to general wealth of our country will include all as we 'radical leftists' want it - or just them and their position on the board.

We cannot get enough poor and working poor white males to flip the script. They have the same soundtrack in their heads, and they NEED it to believe that they lost because someone else took something from them that was rightfully theirs. We aren't going to change enough of them by November. We just won't. <---They've bought into the lies they have been told. It feeds their ego.

If we can't figure out a way to tell them they are better and superior to all of the 'takers' -- we won't get them.

[KPN]

19. When I read Center/Left here, I hear Right/Center. We aren't that.

[delisen]

7. Have you forgotten Nader's popularity with younger voters in 2000-

even though he was getting financial support from Republicans?

Gore, whose work on addressing climate change was so much more meaningful than Nader's just wasn't good enough.

I know one northeastern college where huge percentage of the students were activists for Nader up until the election results came in-whereupon they burned Nader in effigy. Too late of course to change their votes or those of the thousands of people they lobbied to back Nader.

Fundamental change will come when women have parity in elective office. We have tried the male dominance in the public sphere and unfortunately it has brought us to where we are today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Nowhere near at the same scale n/t

[KPN]

21. THIS ... exactly.

[Sloumeau]

8. The last time the Dem Nominee was the guy that the younger people wanted...

that the older Dems did not was 1972. Wisdom is a precious gift.

[calguy]

9. +1000%

[redqueen]

13. So older voters can't be trusted to stand with the party on election day? nt

[Sloumeau]

23. You wrote:

So older voters can't be trusted to stand with the party on election day? nt

That is neither what I said nor what I meant. In 1972, George McGovern ended up with the Democratic Nomination. His signature issue, ending the Viet Nam War made him the most popular candidate among Democrats under 30. However, McGovern only ended up with about 25.3% of the primary votes? So, how did he end up the winner? Well, his 25.3% was actually slightly less than Hubert Humphrey's 25.8%, but McGovern won more contests than Humphrey. McGovern won 21 states compared to Humphrey's 5. Here's how the numbers stacked up:

Name..................Contests Won........Vote %

George McGovern........21..................25.3%
Hubert Humphrey..........5...................25.8%
George Wallace............10...................23.5%
Edmund Muskie..............5....................11.5%
Shirley Chisholm.............3.....................2.69%

The older and more Conservative voters tended to vote for Wallace in the South, and for Humphrey in the North. The states that McGovern and Muskie won were spread across the United States. Chisolm won New Jersey and got partial wins in 2 other states.

Because there were three strong contenders who each got about a quarter of the vote, in some ways this was a very close primary. With the older and more conservative Democrats largely divided between Wallace and Humphrey, plus other votes going to Muskie and Chisholm, this allowed McGovern to win the Primary with only 25.3% of the vote. A lot of his support came from younger and more liberal voters.

Union leaders, such as the leader of the AFL-CIO, did not support McGovern's anti-war position. Many Democrats thought that since the U.S. had never lost a war, that they would not lose the Viet Nam War war either. When McGovern ran against Nixon, not only did many Republicans and Independents vote for him. A number of Democrats did too because they did not support McGovern's position. This is always the risk when a lot of candidates run in a primary--that the Democrats might end up with a candidate that not enough Democrats actually support. This is why the Democratic Party eventually created a number of winner take all states and why it made eventually made super delegates more powerful.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Not much has changed in 50 years, eh? n/t

[Autumn]

17. When was the last time the Dem nominee was the guy the older guys wanted that the younger

Dems did not want? Yes, Wisdom is a precious gift, if you listen to the wisdom.

[KPN]

26. 2020 isn't 1972. Not even close. Few were awake to income inequality at the time.

The Vietnam War dominated the political landscape, not the economic inequities/failures of capitalism. Global warming is our present day Vietnam in that it has greater potential effects on the lives of younger voters, but beyond that, other key issues including income inequality transcend age groups by comparison. My sense is the generational differences were greater in 1972 than they are today -- but that's just my sense.

[Sloumeau]

28. Tom Rinaldo's post seemed to be saying not to discount...

what younger voters want. My point was that when the younger voters get what they want, but the older voters do not, it is bad news. Democrats won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential Elections. The electoral college (and the Supreme Court) cheated us out of two, and Bush won the popular vote in 2004. All of the last seven Presidential candidates were supported by older Democrats, and six of them went on to win the popular vote. That is a pretty good record for Older Americans. The last time we had a split between older Americans and younger Americans that I can find is 1972, where the Democratic Nominee, McGovern, was the favorite among the young, but a lot of older Democrats did not want him. That ended in disaster.

My point is, if my choice is between the favorite of the young versus the favorite of the old, I'm going with the favorite of the old. Not only do they have a good track record in choosing candidates, but they show up at the polls in higher numbers. Even in 2018, when younger voters showed up in much greater numbers than usual, the youngest voters still had the lowest turnout rate, and each older group had a higher turnout rate than the younger ones before them.

SUMMARY:

So, to summarize, older Dems have a good track record choosing candidates. the only time in modern history that I can find a split, between the wants of older and younger voters, the younger voters got what they wanted, and the Dems got slaughtered. Also, older Dems have a better record of showing up to vote.

If my choice is whether to disappoint the younger voters or the older voters, the younger voters will just have to wait their turn.

[squirecam]

36. Please stop

With the EC and the Supreme Court cheated Dems out of the presidency.

Clinton lost due to Comey/Russian interference. Gore had the butterfly ballot.

But even then, had Nader and Stein not taken so many votes, the Democrat would have won.

The greatest electoral problem for democrats is the Green Party. Because Sarandon and those voters will happily cause a Dem to lose over defeating Trump.

Nobody should vote Green this year. Period.

[Sloumeau]

39. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Also, I love Amy Klobuchar.

Are you sure that you meant to reply to me?

[squirecam]

40. I'm just

Tired of letting Green voters off the hook.

The EC isn’t changing. Trump is going to cheat.

To vote Green is to vote to doom the country, if not the planet.

[Sloumeau]

41. Hey, I understand.

The people who voted for Jill Stein, a person who had no hope of winning, and helped to allow Donald Trump to win really need to examine how they vote in the future.

The people who voted for Jill Stein were definitely a factor. The fact that I did not mention them does not mean that they were not a factor. The OP was talking about younger voters, so that is where I put my focus. That is all.

[jalan48]

10. Climate change protests are going to dwarf anything we saw back in the 60's and those protests

caused some serious heartburn for the Republicans and Democratic Centrists of the day. Politicians who are calling for a return to the past are seriously deluding themselves and their followers. It may well take an authoritarian and tyrannical form of government to keep these protesters quiet.

[tirebiter]

11. Removing Trump is the focus. Period. Then we begin the next story.

If anybody wants to be an remf on this then get the fuck out of the way

[MH1]

18. Exactly. And thank you for "remf"

I wonder how many BS supporters have the relevant experience to know what that means without reading it in a book or googling it.

[redqueen]

35. Oh yes, if we don't know military slang that surely is a black mark on us.

[highplainsdem]

20. You're writing as if ALL younger voters back Sanders. They don't. You're also ignoring the

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE carrot Sanders is dangling in front of them with the talk of not just free college but forgiving ALL student debt, including private-college debt, no matter how large the debt or how able the debtor is to pay it back.

I don't recall any previous generations, when young, expecting that from a Democratic presidential candidate to win their vote.

I don't recall financial windfalls that could run into six figures being part of a Democratic campaign to lure young voters before this one.

I don't think it takes any sort of idealism to vote for a candidate promising you a financial windfall. At least we've never seen it that way when Republicans offered tax breaks to attract not only votes but donations.

IMO we'd be seeing a lot less support for Sanders among younger voters if they weren't being offered this financial inducement.