Yes, I know.
I happen to think it is flat-out insanity that “keep the earth habitable” is not a sufficient policy goal in its own right. But, it is also flat-out insanity that “keep the earth habitable” is viewed as a left-wing issue, as though Republicans didn’t need to eat food or breathe oxygen, or something.
Just me in ‘old man yelling at cloud’ mode, I suppose.
But they don’t, they just have to drink blood occasionally.
From Bernie’s email to supporters today:
We are running against a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe and someone who is undermining American democracy as he leads us in an authoritarian direction.
You’re fucking right. Point me to where Klobuchar informs her prospective voters that she understands that our Republic is under dire threat from the man who is ostensibly President.
(I’m still not voting for Bernie in the primary. But I appreciate what he’s done and what he continues to represent.)
I appreciate it too. Thanks for that excerpt! Damn tootin.
I think she said exactly that on national TV last night?
And if national TV was QT3 or my Reddit feed, I would have seen it!
I’m a cord cutter. TV is so 90s.
Bad policy will mean they switch to the Republican in 2024. This is our chance to do some real fixes because of Trump, they’ll be willing to choose a progressive over Trump.
Also you have to worry about all the young folks who stayed home in 2016. There’s more of those than wishy-washy centrists.
I’m ambivalent between Bernie and Warren (and could tolerate Harris pretty easily- I think she’s trying to have it both ways but she’s not a real Third Way Dem), I just want to keep the Third Way Dems out.
If Klouchbar could get over 2-3% I’d be worried about her.
Is there data that suggests this, or is this anecdote?
More young people voted – in raw numbers and as a percentage of the electorate – in 2016 than in 2012, per the US census: Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election
In fact, of all age demographic groups in 2016, youth voters were the only group that increased percentage over 2012.
Isn’t 2008 a fairer comparison than 2012, given it was Obama’s second term and you’d expect less turnout/youthful enthusiasm?
18-29s in 2016 was down 5% over 2008, and 18-29s had by far the biggest decline between 08 and 12 too - far larger than in any other age demographic.
But how many votes does each tweet count as?
It certainly is, if we’re making a straight comparison across years. But if we’re simply stating that: “The Democrat lost in 2016 because of youth vote that stayed home,” I have difficulties with that, insofar as:
Clinton’s loss in 2016 – in looking at demographic factors and areas of the country – is pretty nuanced and complex. A gordian knot explanation of her losing because of youth vote, or because some group didn’t turn out tends to have a pretty significant and not-to-be-dismissed “Although…” component.
The main point: twitter, facebook, instagram and reddit (especially) aren’t the electorate. Neither is anyone’s workplace, nor some overheard conversation on the train to work. What you witness in those spaces may be indicative of larger trends…but they may not be, too; they may be more indicative of your siloed experience. Absent some kind of broader public opinion survey, it can lead to drawing skewed conclusions.
For instance: Amy Klobuchar’s approach probably plays pretty poorly with the demographic that makes up a lot of this forum–white, left-leaning, educated males. I suspect it may play better – and is at least the hope of her campaign strategists – that it finds purchase with other demographic slices, however, who are likely democratic primary voters. Especially within some narrow geographic confines.
That’s fair, and I think 2016 certainly bears out your point that social media (or even media) isn’t representative of the electorate.
Thank God. These days I haven’t seen so many young alt-right people in any other place online save 4chan.
One other thing that really fascinates me, because its a thing that may go back to Howard Dean and 2004: national candidate polling is great and neat and whatnot, and it definitely has its value…
…but what about state-specific polling in the primary season? I mean, if Klobuchar hasn’t done an internal poll for how her centrist answers on Medicare for all, college, and the GND in play Iowa before doing that CNN Town Hall this week…eesh. That’s almost campaign malpractice. I mean, I’m suspecting they play well in Iowa, but I’m suspecting that based on Klobuchar representing a state that borders Iowa to the north, and suspecting that based on her own internal polling in the state.
I still find it ridiculous that a candidate has to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina in order to be taken seriously as a candidate in a national election.
I was a big Bernie fan last election cycle, I think there were a few of us here. I know that rubbed the Hillary crowd wrong, not the least of it due to Bernie taking his time to actually concede and endorse her.
His announcement makes me happy and sad at the same time. I love the guy and what he stands for. But I know they will drill his age like there is no tomorrow this go-round and that along with a better (starting) pack of Democrats this go round tells me Bernie should have held back.
I dunno, it takes good candidates to push the pack into better directions sometimes, but it can also drag down the primary process and create conflict, just like last election cycle.
I guess we will see what happens.
I share your sentiments, Skipper.
Yeah, I’m very much hoping that this cycle is the last time we keep doing this hidebound primary order because “tradition”.
The one good thing about Iowa: in 2008, as a primarily white, older state, the caucus win there for Obama added extra emphasis and “holy shit” factor that underscored him as a candidate and his campaign as a force.