2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumKING: The Democratic Party doesn't understand or connect with young voters
That's a problem for Hillary. That's a huge problem. It should be setting of loud, bright red emergency alarms in the Democratic Party.
The message should be clear - young people absolutely don't prefer what the Democratic Party is trying to sell them. Period.
Every single conference, workshop and rally I have attended this past year has been completely dominated by young people who not only love Bernie Sanders, but they love what he believes in and stands for. They hate super-delegates. They don't trust Hillary Clinton and they despise lobbyist and SuperPAC money in politics.
…
Has this ever happened before? Have young voters and older voters ever disagreed this clearly and strongly on the future of the Democratic Party? I don't think so.
…
I get it. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee. I can do the math, but the party is running the risk of losing its future if it does not find a way to genuinely regain the trust of America's youth.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-understand-young-voters-article-1.2682502
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...I'm one of the oldest people eligible to be called a Millenial (early 30's) and I see dwindling prospects for my kid when they're out of school (a long ways off, but still...). Bernie addressed the concerns younger people have when it comes to being able to afford life, which for many is well out of reach. That concern isn't at all limited to the young or any other demographic group, it just hits them harder. Eventually, probably soon, we will have to address the fact that life here in America is way too expensive and do things to offset those costs, which means accepting Sanders agenda because that was really what it was all about.
Automation and the resulting elimination of jobs will speed up the process, but getting people to change their mindsets to see it and appreciate the problem will take years.
metroins
(2,550 posts)Our children's generation will be better than ours if we parent well (and they stay away from drugs).
We always think the future is doom and gloom but it keeps getting better.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)King's statement is, and should be, completely unsurprising. The Democratic Party, and all/most (longstanding) organizations, "get" those segments of the population that demonstrate a sustained interest in that organization.
ETA: Every generation believes it has all the solutions and feels unheard. And every generation, with time, becomes heard ... though not fast enough for that generation's liking.
I'll go back, now, and read the OP, at the link.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Some were former Bernie supporters. All are voting for Hillary this Fall.
Generally, young votes don't vote, but they always are more likely to vote Democratic.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The local Dem headquarters is crawling with college-age kids. The vast majority were Bernie supporters and they are wearing Hillary buttons now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)However, if history serves as a guide, most will be no where around after November 2016 ... until re-appearing about April 2019, rallying around the "angry" candidate.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)They will continue to be frustrated if they don't show up in 2018, and wonder why nothing gets better.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)it will be motivating enough for them to vote in their own interests.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)pointing to the horrific alternative, is not enough. That strategy might get someone to vote ... in this election. No, the younger generations must be disabused of, and willing to let go of, the nihilistic notion that our "way of life" is dependent on our solving ALL of our problems today, or even tomorrow. We must get engaged, and stay engaged, fighting for tomorrow, while taking the victories won today, no matter how small, off the board.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hillary will do just fine with young people. Those who vote for Trump are not Democrats and never were.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)and make a impact on outcomes has almost always been a pipe dream. If it happens fine. if it doesn't, oh well.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)to look up from their damn phones is hard enough.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)interested in the latest snap-chat fad than paying attention to "boring" politics. I have to consistently remind them that the wages they make, their livelihood, their rights as PoC and women, their right to net-neutrality, and their undocumented families' fate are in their hands and snap-chat won't save them if laws are overturned or killed by Republicans before they have a chance to come to the Congress' floor.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Now he's lying again, by taking primary voters and extrapolating to the general elections, to fit his preconceived "group x won't vote for Hillary" shtick.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There is a phrase for that: Self-selected Grouping.
I could, easily and accurately say, Every single conference, workshop and rally I have attended this past year has been completely dominated by Black people or Democrats or HR Professionals or Kappas or golfers ... because that is where my interest lies and the people I tend to hang with.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)really smart people seem to be blinded by their own bias.
"I am Black. I support this (or that) position. I attend events advocating this, or that, position sponsored by a Black Organization." So, I write an OP observing that every event I attend is dominated by people that look and think like me.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,453 posts)won't vote for Clinton in the general. They're two different ball games.
DemFromPittsburgh
(102 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)season. Would love the party and Hillary's campaign to swing left and listen.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)and the few younger voters who did vote for the GOP may have voted Trump but polls show they will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary in November by and large. Furthermore once Bernie actually endorses Hillary I think even more will move her way. Furthermore if she chooses a running mate like Warren I think that would also help.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Of the 25% left, roughly half will vote for Trump and the other half will vote for third-party, like Jill Stein.
But Hillary's got the vast majority - 2/3rds - of them already.
You can't make all of the people happy all of the time, but if you've got the vast majority, you're looking good. 
stopbush
(24,393 posts)She had been a Sanders supporter, but after reading up on his policies v Hillary, she voted for Hillary. She felt his policies were too pie-in-the-sky. Even with her part-time job she realizes there's no such thing as something for nothing.
What disappointed her was that half of her friends - Sanders supporters all - couldn't be bothered to vote. These are kids who had discussed the primaries at length. The excuses ranged from "I don't follow it on TV that much" to "I had to work later" to "I forgot." She was very disappointed that her socially conscious friends couldn't be bothered with voting, even though she had heard that the young don't vote. She assumed her friends were different. They weren't.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The bigger question this raises is why the apathy about the political system, wvwn among young people who are Socially conscious.
Could that be because politicians, the mainstream media and the system they operate seems remote, unweldy, corrupt and irrelevant to real life and the real issues they care about?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)something seems irrelevant ... one doesn't care ... one doesn't act ... one gets a result one doesn't like ... so the something seems irrelevant, and one doesn't care.
Could that be because politicians, the mainstream media and the system they operate seems remote, unweldy, corrupt and irrelevant to real life and the real issues they care about?
Could it be that young people are doing what young people do, especially, in these days of (near) instant gratification and constant stimulus bombardment ... If they don't get what they want, immediately, they move on to the next stimuli?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I won't disagree that it's harder to get young people engaged in politics for a variety of reasons.
But that's only a partial explanation. There are young people who do get engaged, or who would if they felt that there was an actual connection to their lives, needs and, yes, idealistic side.
But in a larger sense, government and politics has just become a remote world of grey people doing nothing but fighting each otehr for advantage...And people who drift from government to lucrative work cashing in on their political connections.
This isolation and permanent state of gridlock and preceded the present primary, and is not limited to young people.
There is no cure all for that, but like him or not, Sanders did begin to push the needle in the otehr direction. POught to look at the whys, and the hows to reconnect politics to real life again.
.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as you my know, I do a lot of work with Black (male) young'ins (aged 11-30,), encouraging and mentoring for political and civic engagement. And, of those of age, this ...
Is not a widely shared perception.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)data point that they tend not to vote. It's been that way for decades.
The only difference this year was that people bought the spin that the Sanders camapign had tapped into the youth vote and that they would make a difference at the polls this time around. The truth is that they didn't show up at the polls, thus fulfilling the data point.
Sanders was up against a reality that has never worked out for those who preceded him as a candidate. That it ended up transpiring the same way it always does wasn't a surprise.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)
I guess THOSE RW talking points are allowed on the "new" DU. Just not some other ones.
Nevermind that Sanders was in no way or form peddling "something for nothing".
stopbush
(24,393 posts)his plan?
He used those words in every stump speech, every debate, every TV appearance.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Being policy wonky in sound bites does not work. The details on are in his site.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Whether or not you agree with Sanders specific proposal to expand the length of public education, , do you want to dismiss that too as "free stuff" and something for nothing?
stopbush
(24,393 posts)K-12 is funded primarily on the local level, with an assist from the state gov. Local residents have control over the spending - levies are put on the ballot and the people vote whether they will increase school spending or not.
That doesn't apply to state colleges and universities. It's a different model. Expenses are met by charging tuitions and with state funding. Sanders plan calls for the federal gov to fund most of his free college thru a tax on speculative trading (a lame-brained, self-defeating idea on its face), with the states required to pick up a third of the expenses.
While I agree in principle that the USA should be able to come up with $90-billion a year to provide free state college to all, Sanders' plan is a non-starter.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)
Did you ever even listen to him or read his proposals?
He also proposed an EFT to pay for tuition free public schools before the usual 2nd lie gets repeated (that he wanted to raise your taxes)
TwilightZone
(25,453 posts)"MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES"
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
Did you ever even listen to him or read his proposals?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Books, housing, living expenses, lab fees etc are not covered under his plan except for the poorest students (who are typically already covered under other social services programs and grants)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)poverty. 2,500,000 America children are homeless, 16,000,000 live in poverty, and 16,000,000 more living is low income homes. They see the Wealthy ripping them off on college loans, sending decent jobs to China, holding down wages, killing unions, letting the countries infrastructure crumble, destroying safety nets, sending people to prison for smoking pot, and sending young people to die in wars for corporate profits.
They recognize, while their parents might not, that we must get big money control out of our government. Until then, don't expect lasting social or economic justice.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)But, that was before everyone understood his objectives, or the long-term effects it would have.
I'm guessing that the young are nervous because most programs are stacked against them.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Showing up on MTV back in those days helped get those like me involved.
Baitball Blogger
(46,697 posts)The internet adds another layer.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)times, it's directed at us ... But it is always present ... for some.
TwilightZone
(25,453 posts)18-34: 54/34 Clinton.
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/568faad2-81ab-4bd0-b373-8577326e76bd.pdf
538 rates the Monmouth poll A+
Too many people (King, included) assume that just because young voters supported Sanders in the primary that they won't support Clinton in the general. There's little basis for that assertion.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Wholly captured by Wall Street and corporations, they are no longer the "party of the people."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)dominated by young people who ........ hate super-delegates. They .................. despise lobbyist and SuperPAC money in politics."
All Democrats should agree with them on this.
LiberalFighter
(50,826 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)banks make bigger profits. Our priorities are messed up in this country. Put me down as negative along with King.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I honestly don't understand the purpose of this dribble.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Quite a few of the anti government left of the country during Vietnam era became the Anti-Government right of the last 30 years or so.
They got theirs as far as the great American social contract, but when it came for them to pay a bit more taxes or make other concessions so the others could have the same opportunity then they were not willing.
Granted, the eroding wages of the middle class that came with the decline of unionism, played a part in their selfishness but part of it was just their selfishness
I feel sorry for younger people. I know a lot of people under 40 and very few are as far along economic security wise as my wife and I were at the same age. Not necessarily due to lack of initiative but lack of opportunity.
Plus with the decline in retirement benefits a lot of the older people are working longer, depriving younger people of the jobs they should rightfully move out of to open up opportunity for the young people.
I'm retired now, but the kids I worked with made less in real terms than I did at the same point in my career at my previous workplace, plus less benefits.
People have to understand that if we do not expand unions we are going to have to have the gov't expand the social safety net and benefits thru redistribution or we are going to have either a revolution or we will become a country nobody wants to move to anymore.
I think both parties realize this but both need to move from blaming the victims to helping them.
brush
(53,759 posts)protestors. There was a dichotomy in that generation just as in others. There were protestors on the left and young repugs on the right.
The rightist protestors of today came from the later group.
The rest of us are still here on the left, some more left than others, but I dare say very few if any are out there clamoring for a Trump presidency.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)From a different thread:
Looking thru the threads on this site there're situations which seem unrelated and are treated as if they are independent. Hel, there are probably 10 or 15 active right now, like the health insurance fiasco, the rental issue, etc.
And the source for all seem to have a starting point around the same time.
Labor laws, Voting rights, Oligopolies. M&A strategy, decline of innovations, stagnant wages, and the list goes on and on.
All starting around 1980.
It seems to me that the best possible course to start fixing all of these little things is to look at the changes that started then and if they are the first step in a downward direction,
change the direction. Work to reverse those bad moves. When you find yourself lost the first thing to do is review the turns you made and recognize which one is the culprit.
Quit the status quo. It is broken. What's that definition of insanity again?
Well, this explains a whole lot: America's upper middle class is thriving: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027940924
Perhaps it takes a fresh face to see things. Kinda like a lot of people never realize just how their home smells. And when the kid comes home from college and mentions it...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It had as a backdrop the intractable problems of the 70's. But literally, before and immediately after 1980, we went through a paradigm shift. But in trying to correct those, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
It went to a rapid fixation on money and nothing else. It was especially blatant in the corporate world, but also extended to government, non-profits and general public attitudes.
That set the stage for a steady deterioration of business morality, and the march to the right. It's still going on, but there is the possibility of swinging the pendulum in another paradigm shift to the left to reach an actual center rather than the Conservative idea of the "center."
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)to win votes. We've all seen it played out far too many times before. It's stale, it's phony, and it's past it's expiration date.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)What horseshit. The easier way to read that is that the Democratic Party got the support of way, way more young people than did Trump, which is one reason its going to romp all over him in November.
Consider this analogy: a cafeteria sells only coffee, tea, and Fanta. Fanta outsells tea, and 30% more coffee is sold than Fanta and tea combined. Then, suddenly, the cafeteria stops selling coffee. Is tea in trouble? Or are tea sales about to soar?
I can't believe someone got paid to write that drivel.
oasis
(49,365 posts)their sleeves, and work for change within the party.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)our local Dem club = age about 55 upwards. These people are very set in their ways.
oasis
(49,365 posts)the one who determine its direction and focus. Becoming age 55 doesn't click off one's ability to accept constructive ideas.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)organize all the Sanders supporters and create a brand new political party with hookers and blackjack or something?
What happened with that?
300gools
(20 posts)The fact that Trump won the young vote versus Cruz doesn't mean he will win it against Clinton.
Trump doesn't have the popular Sanders to beat.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Pay Attention To Libertarian Gary Johnson; He’s Pulling 10 Percent vs. Trump And Clinton
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/
And, preemptively: No, I'm not plugging Libertarians. No, I don't support Libertarians. Why might young potential Democrats be drawn to Libertarians? They promote themselves as not being "pay-to-play" or in the pockets of Wall-Street. It's not true, but that is their propaganda.
Response to w4rma (Reply #67)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JI7
(89,244 posts)Because trump won among minorities in the republican party . And Sanders lost them in the dem primary.
