2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat drives the extreme age division between Sanders and Clinton voters?
I think this may have a lot to do with it.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)people who don't have money want people who have money to pay for their "stuff " whatever stuff is)
people who have the money don't want to pay for the stuff
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)free college and help with loans
peacebird
(14,195 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)looking at the graph it should be at least the top 80%.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)"the numbers of people start tapering off at advanced ages"
...tapering off from what!
forest444
(5,902 posts)That has to do primarily with mortality, which of course increases after 60. But it also has to with the notable increase in births during the 1950s. That is, the number of people in their late 50s and early 60s would be a lot greater than the number of people in their 70s (born around 1940) even if not a single one had died (plus, there'd be a lot of grateful grandkids).
The two factors combined to create a situation in which the number of people, by 5-year age groups, begin a pronounced decline at the 60-64 age group. Up to the 55-59 group, you'll notice, the number of Americans in each age group is roughly the same (11 million in each gender).
This, by the way, is often pointed to as the principal reason for the alleged "funding crisis" Social Security is said to be entering. It's nonsense, of course, because the number of people in each of the younger 5-year age groups is also similar to the number of people in the 5-year group nearing retirement. Social Security would be in real trouble if our population pyramid looked like this:
That's a lot of older people nearing retirement, compared to the number of younger, working-age people. The solution? Lifting the cap on taxable income!
Hope this helped!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)We now have two decades of stagnant wage growth.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)honestly when people say voters are unsophisticated, I'm thinking they are just greedy or lazy. I am wary that any movement will last past Bernie in the primaries. Let alone be there in 2 1/2 years, and 2 after that.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)hope for the future and the majority of the youth are more enlightened and will move things in the correct (avoiding the word right) direction. I am not religious, but I am spiritual (I do not believe in an old gray haired man with a p.e.n.i.s sitting on a throne in the sky). As the youth replaces the uninformed/misguided older people, the numbers for the progressives will grow and grow and grow. Example: The youth today, on the most part, couldn't care less if their friends are gay or have a certain ethnicity, if they are divorced, etc......YAY! Suggestion: Read Edgar Cayce's books.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Lots of the older people are very liberal -always have been and lots of the under 30's are not interested in politics so much. I fear like all the generations before them they won't reliably vote till they are much older. It's hard when you see such cynicism in the very young.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)A good number are republican today. Nothing is guaranteed. We have no idea what the youth will vote for in 30 years or more.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Funny, I can't find that "Relax I got this" Obama poster that was so popular some years ago, I was going to post it but it's just gone.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ends with Bernie with a lot of people. Like Bernie against the world, so if he doesn't make it, the game is over for them. To me it's a lifelong thing, not one contest. But I am odd, LOL.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)a very important point bettyellen.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Because that's not nearly the truth. Wages stalled a long time ago, and opportunities down too. This has been since Regan, not Bush 2. I wince when I hear people who think this is new.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,819 posts)the stingier and meaner they get.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)taking hundreds of thousands in speaking fees would be . . .
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,819 posts)But the researchers have identified a trend in that direction. http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)peacebird. Thank you for your post.
whathehell
(29,082 posts)They currently pay the lowest rate in sixty years and they want to pay less.
kath
(10,565 posts)Jeebus.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)that fits with the graph?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Amazing But True
hill2016
(1,772 posts)lacking in the older generations?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Some old people equate Clinton with idealism (for reasons I don't agree with, but I won't deny it is a form of idealism).
And some of us identify with Bernie style idealism. (To save myself from rewriting it, I'll plug my OP threads threads Old Farts for Bernie and Why Berne Resonates with some older Viters here on DU the last couple of days. )
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511120660
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511107202
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)i have great values. i've been lower middle class, middle class and upper middle class. more than 10% of my income goes to charity.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Conservatives have no place in the party.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and they can't meet her $2700 minimum donation
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Better hope the 63% don't vote.
senz
(11,945 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Many are spending their money eating out or on higher cost cable, etc.
In other words, their priorities don't include saving for car repairs.
"even 46% of the highest-income households ($75,000+ per year) and 52% of college graduates lack enough savings to cover a $500 car repair"
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)you don't have time to cook at home, and have to eat out a lot.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)"even 46% of the highest-income households ($75,000+ per year) and 52% of college graduates lack enough savings to cover a $500 car repair"
cali
(114,904 posts)any more fulsomely? It is truly disturbing to see that ugly shit posted here. I expect nothing more from you, hill.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)why richer older liberals support Clinton and poorer younger liberals don't?
Is it about guns? POC issues? Immigrant issues?
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Clearly people are hurting in this configuration that we have with taxes, and whatnot. People don't have the dignity to but just show up at the ER. And we wonder why there's gun violence. But I digress. I actually feel glee when giving and helping. This is the joy I see emanating from people like Bernie Sanders, to name only one. Us. We. We're together in this whether we like it or not, so we might as well make it beautiful.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I think that's one of the most important aspects of this process. That's what some use in order to change minds of voters. It can be desire for building something better, or hoping that taxes don't change enough to impact one's life too much. It could be identifying, like some of those who wanted a beer with Bush. Or I believe misguided, when it comes to Trump. And I ask myself if what I'm doing makes sense. I like to start from the point of democratic principles. It seems that's the fight we've been in as a country.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)why richer liberals vote Clinton and poorer liberals don't?
Sure it might not be causative but the correlation seems high.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)The glorious makers, the veritable Atlas' holding the world upon their infinitely superior shoulders, being attacked upon and put upon by the inferiors. Ah, the Ubermench, why hopefully Hillary can be a right good John Galt and rescue you lot from those dirty, wretched, and wholly inferior and intolerable beasts.
*sagenod*
hill2016
(1,772 posts)why do you think richer liberals support Clinton and poorer ones support Bernie?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)Perhaps look at why the wealthy over all tend to like books like Atlas Shrugged, Randianism, or in general any philosophy that says their large bank account is a result of their general superiority and thus they've earned every penny and owe nothing to anyone else.
Why do the Koch's support the GOP? Why is Ayn Rand the darling of the Right?!
EDIT: Perhaps richer liberals have lost the plot and are essentially Randian Conservatives and Plutocrats were it suites them but likes the nice and easy "left wing," causes that can be solved with Hashtag campaigns and sleek business friendly issues.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I want to pay for better education and healthcare. I just don't think Sanders' plan will work. And I don't believe he has the political skill to get much passed if he is elected. I actually think Clinton will be better at those things.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You have not seen the stonewalling and gridlock.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I am ON YOUR TEAM in this thread and you are going to beef with me about this bullshit? This is why Sanders cannot win in a microcosm.....
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)That's why I joined the Democratic Party as soon as I was old enough to vote: Democrats were clearly the better people.
Is it no longer true?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)No police or fire either. Pay for your own roads, I do not want to pay for others.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)If by "stuff" you mean an existence that doesn't involve fear, privation, and hopelessness?
Then yeah.
Christ on a crutch some of you guys are tone deaf to the plight of millions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)longer than most younger folks have been alive. I think they remember when they thought we had all the answers and detested the Establishment. I think older folks are a little wiser -- at least Democrats. The issues for older folks are a lot wider than what Sanders is selling, although he has tried to expand his stump speeches.
We've also seen what happens when you try to push through big legislation like healthcare reform -- saw it in 1994 and 2009. Been a supporter of universal healthcare since at least 1980s after working for a state Medicaid agency. At this point with this Congress, I believe we are better off not fighting the big fight again, but improving the ACA with addition of a public option, bigger subsidies, reduced out-of-pocket costs. If you accept 58% of Americans are for single payer, then there are 42% who don't buy into it and want more choice even if it costs them more. I also think a chunk of the 58% will still gripe about single payer when they find it won't be as cheap as they believe, at least for decades. Should have gone to universal healthcare in 1994, most of the issues would be worked out now and most people would be in government plans.
We've also lived through McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis landslides. The stakes are probably higher now, than then.
I'm perfectly willing to pay a little more to help younger folks. The fact is, they are the ones who will be paying our Social Security. And they do have some gripes, like the cost of education. I know jobs are tough, but it was tough back then too, especially if you were likely to get drafted.
I honestly believe Clinton will get more done than Sanders in today's right wing atmosphere and has a better chance to be elected. If youngsters can't get excited about avoiding a Republican administration, that's a problem they are going to have to learn for themselves unfortunately. But if it turns out Sanders is the nominee, I'm on board because the alternative is darn sure scary. I hope young people feel the same about Clinton.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)a better explanation for the OP's graph?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...Younger people, while older people go "I got mine, FUCK YOU" and then rant about how us young people are causing the world to go to hell.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)you are not a republican? .....I got mine, to heck with the regular people......hurry, hurry, hurry, pull up the ladder so nobody else can get on board.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)for the OP's graph?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)shawn703
(2,702 posts)That attitude should be labeled as such, and the people who express that attitude should be shamed repeatedly until they have to hide under rocks like the bigots.
The parents of the baby boomers, the ones with more assets now, were happy to give them "stuff" - particularly investment by the government in higher education so tuition wasn't sky high and people could reasonably work their way through. They also invested in primary schools and civil infrastructure.
Baby boomers, after benefiting from this, said: Cut government and we'll take the tax cuts and our kids and grandkids can pay the higher tuition with loans that they spend half their lives paying back (while we, meanwhile, outsource good-paying jobs and replace them with poorly paid service-sector work and refuse to raise the minimum wage)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)#1 or #2? I keep forgetting.
.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)it was a given that the government was going to pay the bulk, or close to all of, your tuition. Today, it's understood that you'll be an indentured servant to Wall Street banksters.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Just a thought.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Sanders is selling moonshine and rainbows.
Old people are generally more able to see through that sort of thing than younger ones.
Response to hill2016 (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Young people are open to change in many ways,
older people are far more afraid of it, and prefer
the status quo.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)that things are not what they were when they were young.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He still gets his primary political information from the Sunday pundit talk shows, and sneers at Internet political thought.
The network/cable punditry are mouthpieces for the status quo, so it colors his political ideology. If he sees it on TV it's true; if he reads it on the Internet it's subjective fluff. His view are shaped accordingly.
Young people tend to go the other way.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)If the olds are so dumb, why do you guys like him so much?
And where do you get your political info from, primarily? Curious to know.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I have grandchildren old enough to vote and I know the world they are living in isn't their grandfather's world by a long shot.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)That is why I am curious when people make statements like that. And REALLY interested in hearing from the actual poster who made the comment I replied to as to what the thinking is there.
I am younger than you and the "sparring" partner, but not a millennial. Technically Gen X I guess..... I run a business that employs a huge number of millennials. It is true that they don't watch TV, but neither do I. And I end up doing all the social networking because no one else can figure out how Twitter works. I'm going to have to master f'ing Snapchat next, which I hate...... So anyway, my personal experience is very different than the OPs. I guess I hate generalizations like that. Makes me mad when people do it about young voters too.
And the goddamn honest truth of the matter is that in the Democratic Big Tent, ALL the interest groups and demographics are important. So slicing and dicing and making pejorative statements about the olds or youngs who are on the same team seems like a silly waste. I wish people would use better judgement.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Most people of any age don't have brilliant computer skills on the nitty gritty level, my kids and grandkids are better at the social networking thing than I am but I understand the actual computer systems better than any of them. I have the deep knowledge that comes from trying to understand the systems since the early 80's when I got my first computer.
If the Democratic party wishes to remain a viable organization into the future it won't shut out young voters like I think is about to happen in order to get Clinton elected.
It has been and is going to be an interesting election season.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)out young voters. They are an important part of the coalition and the future of the party. Honestly? ANY candidate who can convince them to participate REGULARLY (every year, people, there is an election every year)in the democratic process is doing good work.
They were integral to Obama's victory, but then left us all high and dry in 2010 and 2014. And those losses account for a great deal of the suck that they blame on Clinton and "The Party", IMO. So maybe some of the bitterness from more establishment Dems comes from that. I dunno for sure, but that is a possibility.
And they do need to understand that they are just one small part of a big coalition. Olds, more conservative Dems, Blacks and the growing Latino and immigrant groups are just as important. That is the MATH part that I am always screaming about. No one cares who wins the "most progressive" award if they can't win an election and then pass some legislation. And that requires coalition building.
But the online supporters on both sides can be pretty dumb. Plenty of young Sanders supporters yelling slurs at "older" females. It is pretty hilarious what they have called me. I suspect they don't know who Ruth Bader Ginsburg is and think that is me? I dunno. I have been called "old-ass" and accused of not understanding how the internet works. Lucky I have a sense of humor.....
On the other side, I see Clinton supporters discounting the young voters in ways that I don't think are fair.
And both sides treating the AA vote as an object in their partisan wars. Sigh..... I'm going to ask the admins for a special primary edition smilie of the circular firing squad.....
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And the question is, why? We know Democrats tend to vote in lesser numbers overall during non-Presidential years, so that might be one factor. But for the youth in general I think it was due to the Democrats actually delivering on the Hope & Change Obama ran on.
By 2010, the sort of large Change of Hope & Change fame had not materialized as Obama for some reason thought he could compromise with Republicans. In 2014, Democrats seemed intent on running candidates that tried their hardest to be indistinguishable from Republicans. In neither case was the youth vote inspired or energized.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Things don't change overnight. But also, maybe you were not paying attention.
Because the Supreme Court caused a bunch of the bullshit and there is nothing Obama or anyone could do about that. We just have to wait for that MF Scalia and a few of his cohort to die and hope we have a Dem in office when that happens before THAT changes.
We got ACA passed after a huge throw down with the GOP who were more horrible and obstructionist than most of us expected. The Tea Party was a new thing then. No one really understood what we were up against at first. But we are way better at fighting them now.
We had some AMAZING campaign finance laws passed in my state. Identical to much of what Sanders talks about. In a purple state with "DINO" Dems at the helm, no less.
And then y'all took your ball and went home because either you were too bored to show up or mad about a thing. And the GOP KILLED all that good legislation and we couldn't make the states properly implement the ACA, so that is mostly still screwed up. But still salvageable.
And now you think it is Obama's fault? WTF? If you don't show up to do the most basic thing which is voting, you can't complain. And if you don't show up, NO ONE in your political coalition takes you seriously as an ally and your issues may not get addressed to your satisfaction. It is not OUR job to provide candidates who are sufficiently interesting and fun to keep you engaged. And frankly, finding them is harder than you seem to think.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Paying high middle class taxes with no desire to pay any more. Take your pick. The middle class need wage hikes not tax hikes.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The same wisdom and experienced used to flush down many FDR era reforms, and letting the Clinton/Bush era be known for hard hippie punching and welfare mother demonizing, none of which you repented from?
It is so funny that the generation that said "don't trust anyone over 30" have become exactly the people who are hard to trust, especially as at least their elders gave them a decent economy to work with, while these folk have already spent the grandchioldren's inheritance, much less those of any of we Gen Xers.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)To be fair it was only a minority of my generation who rebelled, most of us just went along with the system as it existed and played the game.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and I really admire you for it, but
Bill defined where he stood the day he made fun of Jerry Brown:
Just another hippie punching jerk.
PS, this was 1992: isn't it sad that in 20 years, we still have to swallow the idea that Bill and Hill can do whatever the hell they want to, because they are Bill and Hill? That scandal could have been ripped from a 2016 headline. Hey Hillary, if Bill can give up the Cigars and Big Macs, why can't you give up this habit of doing clandestine quasi/outright illegal crap, and then hiding behind Bill?
senz
(11,945 posts)Jerry Brown would have made a far better president than Bill Clinton. And we would never have had to even think about Hillary Clinton as a possible president.
I voted for Bill. After 8 years of Reagan and 4 of Bush the elder, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, seemed such a breath of fresh air. I'd only known of Brown as California's "Governor Moonbeam." Slogans and caricatures just make people stupid. Repartee and the quick comeback are not leadership qualities.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Wars?
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)expenses would go down $10,000/year. Morons at freeperville and in the hrc group probably can't get their brains around this, but some of us are still lucid.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Was it Pragmatism that caused her to urge others to also vote for Bush's war?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And something to do with volvos and a "bro" prefix or suffix.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Heaven forbid they, ya know, work to build up their household wealth. Like their parents and grandparents did. Everything should just be handed to them.
"Your parents should pay for it" is a very attractive theme for young voters.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the milennials did not have grandpa pay for college like he did for their dad. Working to build wealth is not the same in an economy that has a lot less wealth to begin with, because a group of people that cannot fill a Movie theater keep most of it. With every day, it become so hard to believe Hillary's generation was the one that wanted social change, all they wanted was the keys to the family car, which they crashed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That number is 20% for milennials.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)where those degrees could get an actual JOB.
The solace I get from Hillary's ascent will be the whining and scream of the people who thought they were her friends, as they get crushed under that bus.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pretty toxic mindset.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Hell, i will not be able to stop it, because by the time the bus rolls over many, we will be squashed roadkill, and I do not wish ill on all, just the most vocal people who like the demonize the young and who act so much like the mean nasty conservatives.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to destroy hope itself. Gotcha.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Her best strategy now is to suppress the under 45 vote as hard as she can.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)he would bring Democrats and Republicans together.
Hope in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Because I understand that's not a good political move for Democrats.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He became much more effective when he abandoned it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)It was a slick marketing campaign. Have a Barack and a Smile do-do-do-dooo-do.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)don't you know that three months in, we are going to have to read obligatory stuff about how hope was bullshit and we shoulda voted Hillary in 2008, so that 2020 will be cleared for Debbie. Krugman is already pissing on the same Obama legacy that the AA voiters want to defend, that Hillary pretends to defend while her pundit ninjas like Joan Walsh and Krugman are busy making sure Obama barely gets a library, much less the Monument that Bill Clinton would never deserve.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)coming from the person supporting a candidate that killed FDR policies that were laughed at, before they became successes (like Glass Steagall.) How does it feel to know that Hillary is saving the right wing from itself, ensuring that anti government, pro plundering thought stays alive even though it's champions on the right still have to drag religion into it to save themselves?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)interest in economic populism is largely driven by the political cycle. But like any national Democratic pol she is susceptible to pressure from her left.
What saves the right from itself is the fact that our base turns out only in presidential years and is (from an electoral point of view) inefficiently concentrated in urban areas.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)OH God, I am so tempted to show this to the AA group so that they can tell me if I just read what I did.
and pray tell, how is she going to get pressure from her left when way back in 2015, the mere notion of putting any pressure to lean left was branded sexism bigotry ratfucking or any number of words that were ABUSED. Frankly, what pressure to go leftward is there without Sanders? After super tuesday Mark Penn and Lynn Rothschild might as well write her daily do to list.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Thank you for responding far far better than I could
frylock
(34,825 posts)$40,000 adjusted right out of high school.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Not even in her 30s yet.
Is that what you mean by millennials wanting someone to just give them something?
.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republican.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Now, tell me how electing Reagan when I was 6 was totally my fault.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The margin was ALL from milennials of color.
P.S. You are, as am I, Gen-X not millennial.
You're not young unless you were born after Reagan's re-election. Scary, huh?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So yes, it is actually "already done".
You're not young unless you were born after Reagan's re-election. Scary, huh?
I assure you, the Boomers still consider us young.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'm usually the oldest person in the restaurant when we go out to eat.
Unless some milennials brought their parents.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not because of their dislike of facial hair, but all the white in their youngest kid's beard.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)gardening and birding.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I was young and broke once. I paid off very large student loans that I signed up for. I didn't blame my mom and dad.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Youth is not lazy. Youth deserves to be paid equally for equall work.
How is it today we work an average of more than 40hrs a week, have no pension, no employer healthcare, no vacation time, and we are the ones being called lazy??
We demand fairness.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Younger people get crappier, lower-paying jobs than do people with more experience. It's always been that way.
Good jobs aren't just given away.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Regardless of age.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)those with more job experience.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Equal pay for equal work.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Why is this a difficult concept?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Simply because of age of all other factors... skill for instance... Are equal?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)The other poster either doesn't or needs to clarify.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Kall
(615 posts)that their parents and grandparents did. And being lectured by people who grew up with strong unions, pre-globalization, regular wage gains, and where an education was the ticket to a steady job rather than the hope for one, is just the height of condescension.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the 1970s and thereafter nobody enjoyed it.
People act like everyone over 30 was just handed everything.
Kall
(615 posts)Goodnight.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)I take experience eveytime....we VOTE....all the time..not just when it fancies us
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)Look, I hold no illusions that the likely still GOP held congress would allow much of any Sanders policy through but its the policy I support.
> A National Health Service
> Infrastructure spending
> Getting the college debt crisis under control
> Shift against privatized Prisons and Justice.
> A guy who won't misuse our army.
> No to TTP
> A Labor oriented leader.
These are important issues, and millennials are facing the Grimdark reality of knowing WE will be taxed, burdened worked, and destroyed by an economy unlikely to recover to any historical level of strength, whom may be too debt ridden to ever have children, and honestly for whom death is about as productive as anything else we might hope to accomplish....
And with this sort of morbid thoughts we have Hillary and our illustrious Elders whom are somewhat responsible for our permanent crisis telling us "Yes you are worthless, stupid and F' off!" * shrug * Sanders is a glimmer of hope, however futile it might actually be.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)Older wealthy Dems read the NYT religiously and watch MSNBC while they cook dinner. They haven't watched the debates live because they're ludicrously timed.
Just a hunch
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Basically defined as people who think they are liberal because they listen to NPR.
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)The schism is a function of how news and information is consumed, not income. Virtually no one under 35 has a TV ( other than as a computer monitor) much less watches cable news or network news. Youngsters also don't trust MSM newspapers
You know the Young Turks was seen by more viewers than most cable news outlets!
MSM is dead man walking because it's propaganda. It's neither fair, balanced, accurate, nor complete. MSM talking heads live in a bubble and what most have to say is inaccurate or just wrong. There are HRC supporters who watch Chris Matthews like he's a trusted source. Meanwhile Twitter regularly hands Matthews his head every day, like every broadcast, for having his head up the establishments' ass. MSM pushes HRC, youngsters look for themselves and say, yikes, no thanks. We don't want a DINO.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Getting weaned from the M$M helps your perspective a lot.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)that news you get from Twitter is fair and accurate?
There is no such thing as "fair and accurate" news source. There is only critical thinking skills and the ability to synthesize information from a variety of sources.
The problem is, many people, of all ages, just read and post the news sources that say the things they like.
And I have been watching political debates on my laptop and talking hashtag smack on Twitter since before many of the Sanders supporters were knee-hight to a grasshopper. This is not actually a new thing for seasoned political junkies. 2012 GOP debates were EPIC
Now get off my lawn :shakescane:
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)The need to be excepted is as important to older people as young, and young people have sold -out less, and aren't as taken to intimidation from TPTB .
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)They are the ones who will not outlive their parents' ages. They are going to face a hostile enviroment form the crap we did in the last 100 years to destroy this amazing host we had. They poisonous food, water, air and oceans. We failed them.
I cannot think anyone but Bernie actually gives a flying eff about this in real terms. No one.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Spot on.
I like to say, this century belongs to those born in it. The rest of us are just guests with a late check-out time.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)You favorably and unfavorable Sanders states. Forget this meme about POC and firewall in SC/NV. Anywhere with high 65+ population is a lost cause.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)He did well even with a larger glut of the old.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)primaries?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A glut means there are too many.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Which there are in Iowa.
Still not seeing the issue
1: an excessive quantity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glut
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)their current numbers are "excessive."
So, in order to curb this glut of excessive numbers of old people, what should be done? Tell them to vote Republican? Population control?
P.S. Here's a suggestion: get Generation X-Box off its ass to vote in every election just like that "glut of old people" do.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)which does have an excess of older voters relative to the rest of the country. That is all that the poster said, and it is not in any way equivalent to what you said.
P.S. Generation X-Box got off its ass in Iowa and delivered Bernie a 70 point margin in Iowa. Thanks for the concern? Maybe if the democratic party ran candidates which represented their values they'd give a damn and vote for them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It means "too many" or "too much."
It is accurate and objectively true as fact to say Iowa runs older than the rest of the country.
It is a personal opinion-based on values--that there are too many old people in Iowa.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)I am not a demographer so I can't say if there is a "correct number of elders."
What I guess I mean is "X place has a proportionally more older people, and Bernie did very very well in-spite of latent skepticism of change or more radical politics."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)All the shades of wrong.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Lorien
(31,935 posts)so they don't care if Hillary helps to destroy most life on this planet with her rabid anti-environmental policies. Short term profits are *everything* to some people.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)That curve is somewhat the natural order of life -- I have a lot more in savings and assets at age 55 than I did at 35, mainly because I made enough house payments to now own my home outright.
And there's the rub. I have assets now because I got on the upward-mobility train when I was in my 20s, had a decent job and bought a house.
Young people today truly don't have the same opportunities I did. I didn't graduate college with a home mortgage worth of student loan debt. Young adults choking on student loans can't buy houses or start families.
Go Bernie Go.
msongs
(67,433 posts)Kumbricia
(84 posts)Remember the Iraq vote?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)of an economy that is completely rigged by and for the 1%. And Bernie is the only one talking about systemic change.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)They are also people who got good city and country jobs back in the day and were able to retire with a great pension. I think it's great they were able to do that but those jobs just aren't there today and young people are aware of this. Times have changed and the new TPP/NAFTA world we live in isn't the same one Hillary and people like her came of age in.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2016, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)marybourg
(12,634 posts)the fact that, not having lived through the heart of the cold war, "socialism" has a different, far more benign, connotation to the young, than it does to their elders.
Socialism was very popular among those who were young in the 1920's and many were avowed socialists until well into the 50's and 60's when communism gave socialism a bad name.
So when I was young,the oldsters were the liberal folks and the youngsters the more conservative ones.
Kumbricia
(84 posts)Also, I think, in the 1950s, for all its flaws, the alternative to socialism was a form of capitalism that was less brutal and more distributive because of unions and public investment and a strong manufacturing sector. Taxes and government weren't yet dirty words. So you might reasonably expect capitalism to be a positive alternative to pure socialism and expect a decent middle class life if you worked hard and played by the rules.
These days, with the balance shifted so far to the right and to the benefit of the ultra-wealthy, with less and less of a safety net, capitalism isn't looking so great. And when sensible proposals like single-payer government insurance is derided as "socialism", it doesn't seem like such a bad thing. So at least the more educated and woken-up among us aren't going to be deterred by the socialist label and may even embrace it.
marybourg
(12,634 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)versus idealistic youthful exuberance.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)I don't want my President to cut ties with the world at the end of the day and sink into a glass of scotch or wine. I want my President to never stop feeling and working for the people. Like a fucking super hero.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)And the courage to believe they can mak a difference.
Some older people are afraid of change and lose the courage to try.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Today, young people know their future is screwed. So they have little to lose by disrupting the entire system.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)so they have lots to gain by engaging in the process and making it better.
Sort of like my generation did for civil rights, Vietnam War, women's rights and more.
You should engage with young people and maybe you'll find some who aren't the lousy losers you seem to think they are.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)GenX, technically.
When we talked about our high tuition and credit-card-interest-rate student debt, we were told it was time to shut up and gut welfare.
Though the party finally did finally work to cut the interest rate...after our scheduled payments were done.
So I'm well aware of what "engagement" wrought. And I'm well aware how the massive political apathy of my generation was created. There's a reason there's basically no GenX Democrats taking over for the Boomer Democrats, and it wasn't for lack of engagement. We're a small generation, and we weren't needed for Democrats to win. So that engagement went nowhere.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Millennials have power. We do not, and will not.
Response to jeff47 (Reply #153)
Nanjeanne This message was self-deleted by its author.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)you figure out that enthusiasm will not overcome counting.
The options are try to lead the Millennials, or serve the Boomers. We simply aren't big enough to get attention on our own.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sounds awfully selfish.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Boomers have assets. They are at risk if we try to change things.
Millennials do not, and a whole lot of them will never own a house under our current system.
Therefore, Millennials are more open to shaking everything up. That doesn't mean they are nihilists out to destroy everything.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and Millennials are even worse off.
There's lots and lots of people who don't want to face the world they created for their children and grandchildren. So there's going to be lots of "they're lazy", "their faces are stuck in iPhones!" and "we're just pragmatic!".
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)The only advantage I see for GenX and later is that with all the overproduction that has occured (At the cost of our environment) that there is a glut of second hand goods for cheap.
We are the thrift store generations. So long Macy's and other retailers, we can not afford you.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)If we Millennials will never collect a dime of Social Security but toil away to prop it up, if we can have no medicare, why support these older ones getting it?
Spite can be a powerful motivator towards hatred and destruction.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)are with Bernie. Like me. 67 years old, and the thought of Hillary as our nominee or as President makes me quite depressed.
On my FB page, every single person who shows up there and has mentioned a candidate, every single one of them are for Bernie. And a lot of my FB friends are my age, plus or minus. What has me so astonished is that I'm not even seeing mention of Hillary, let alone O'Malley or any one of the Republicans. Yeah, my FB page is not exactly an accurate polling site, but it's still somewhat astonishing, the skew to Bernie.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)fighting the system to change things to we can't change things? Did people just get tired or is it the money? What happened to the generation I had such admiration for and looked up to?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Boomers became greedy in the 80s and the ones that are part of the "haves" don't want people taking away their money.
NewHampshiriteGuy
(95 posts)So what happens to the approximately 500k people who work for the health insurance industry if we were able to somehow get single-payer through congress?
This is a serious question, not a repudiation of the concept. I just haven't heard an answer to this yet, and would legitimately like to know.
Thanks to anyone who might have an answer to this.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)There is probably 50K people working in healthcare administration, it employs a lot of people with good paying, many of which are unionized jobs.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)go back to school, and so on. The idea that we have to have the bloodsucking insurance companies taking 20% of our healthcare dollars off the top just so half a million bean counters can have jobs they hate is preposterous. Amazing what malignant thoughts we have been conditioned to believe.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Yet many jobs would still remain; consider that the Medicare system still needs to employ many people, and then extend this out to the entire U.S. population under single payer.
However, "some people will lose their jobs" is no reason to keep around an horribly inefficient system. We don't have tens of thousand of people employed using push brooms to clean the streets anymore either.
40RatRod
(532 posts)...it is pure BS.
George II
(67,782 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)so much as intentional obtuseness.
George II
(67,782 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)......I thanked you for the insult.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)insulted.
George II
(67,782 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)pandr32
(11,605 posts)...didn't really become what it has until the 1990's when mergers and consolidations started giving it power and a Republican Congress started giving it a pass. At the time anything anti-Clinton got media legs, then Fox News was born in 1996 and the rest is well--obvious.
These young people you point to cut their teeth on propaganda and marketing strategies--they have been interpolated as subjects their whole lives without even realizing it.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)were too young to be watching political TV, and adopted the internet and social media as it rolled out. As a 44 year old X-er (who was all for the Battle of Seattle), at the time, I saw the 'fix' and embraced the internet too. TV and hate radio have dwindling effect on those under 55-60.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)retired and relatively comfortable financially, but we're for Bernie all the way. I've been hoping for a candidate like him for about 50 years.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)JeaneRaye
(402 posts)I am 62 years old and my income ~$120,000 per year. I fit right into that graph, but I am a Bernie supporter. I don't know what that says about me, but I'm really glad that I am in line with the young people in this country.
Peregrine Took
(7,417 posts)what they've got. Change is scary - might lose out on their assets, property values, stock. The great recession of 2008 taught a valuable lesson - everyone I know lost money and they never want to have that happen again if they can stop it.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)or maybe they're figuring in the value of home equity and so on.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)I totally get it. You worked hard, and you want to hold on to that little bit you have.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)and mostly making the billionaire class pay for it. He does say he will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare, but he promises that the taxes will be offset by much lower premiums. '
You can have all this free stuff if the wealthy would just pay their fare share -- is more or less what he is saying.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)work history has been.
Younger people get their information from the internet. If they want to know something they look it up on the internet. They search around until they find the truth about something, or something that rings true.
Also, while it is true that older people have money and maybe own property, maybe own their home or something like that (are more likely to have saved assets over the length of their lives) younger people are more likely to have STUDENT DEBT.
Younger people are more likely to have the newer jobs that don't last long and don't pay much.
Older people are likely to have kept at least some job at some time longer than their equivalent in terms of social standing and education who is younger.
Young people are not being paid well. They are competing with other workers across the world who live on less income and are willing to work in what we would find unacceptable conditions.
Older people may have lost jobs but still somehow fool themselves into believing that there is some hope that they will get a real long-term job somewhere.
The big split started in the 1980s when people started losing jobs and we started international trade and taking down import barriers.
I had a babysitting job in 1985 (had just returned to the US and that was the only job I could get). I watched C-Span while the baby slept. They had a discussion in Congress about getting rid of import duties. The Republicans were all for it. I recall that one of the Democrats warned that if we agreed to free trade, we would soon be "serving each other hamburgers" instead of doing real jobs.
That Democrat was right. Somewhere in C-Span's archives, sometime between the end of August 1985 and the middle of November that same year there is a video of that I suspect. Anyway, that is what has happened.
The polite term for it is "the service economy." It's a cruel joke. We are basically serving each other hamburgers and not much more in our economy.
And now they want to push the TPP on us. It is going to mean less money in the pockets of the young (and as they grow older, the old), less independence for our democracy and country, a lower living standard and misery.
"Free" trade is not good for America. It is good for the 1% and the 1%ers are the only people it is good for in America.
It's the people who recognize just how bad free trade and all the mythology that goes with it really are for Americans as individuals and America as a country who are for Bernie. Age is significant because older people still think free trade might have its redeeming qualities and because they are not as frequently looking to start their careers. Older people are OK with the status quo. They can buy what they need with what they have because they don't need as much as the young who are starting careers and families.
This is ALL about jobs and the economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs. We lost our industrial jobs. That's what this is about.
The Clintons are responsible for the loss of a lot of American jobs. The young know that. Their elders do not.
The internet teaches the young what is going on. Their elders rely on the mainstream news which is the news of the uneducated and incurious.
KentuckyWoman
(6,690 posts)I don't believe for one second the medial wealth for 65-74 is $180000 plus. Granted that's a little low if you throw in a paid for house , car and maybe some 401K money but I highly doubt there are enough people in America who are over that amount to make the median that high. The vast majority have closer to zero... or will very quickly after one short illness. To get that amount I think they threw in the few 5%ers which hold most everything.
Maybe it's just everyone I know but I can't believe half of seniors have close to 200 grand squirreled somewhere.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Those with higher incomes, more age, and views more to the right voted for Hillary.
Republican Lite
That is not my cup of tea.
I am happy to be in the young - visionary - hopeful crowd.
An old man who can still imagine.
Clean Air
Healthy Waterways
Sustainable Food Production
Affordable Housing
Single Payer Healthcare
Commitment to Education for All
Green Energy and Transportation
And Relationships With Self And Others
and Between All Beings and Entities Based on Understanding
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)and nothing to lose from his proposals. For the most part, they're not paying any taxes, so they only see upside.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Since 1992, Hillary Clinton has been under a constant GOP smear campaign, and no one under the age of 25 has ever not lived hearing those smears. Of course many of them are influenced - they may not even realize it, but every time a Bernie supporter calls Clinton "Shillary" they show how profoundly brainwashed (and misogynistic) they are.
Vinca
(50,302 posts)As a person on it, I know I am. Of course, mostly I support Bernie and his plans because they will be most beneficial to younger people. Once you age into the "sacred old person" category, politicians pretty much don't screw you over much because they know you vote.