I'm a 63 yr-old and I'm tired of old establishment Dems whining about our great Young Democrats

[JoeOtterbein]

Stop complaining that the young people are not following their supposedly wiser party elders.

The Young Dems are clear about their goals because they have to live longer than us. They know that Climate Change and ecological devastation will weigh heavily on the fate of, not only our nation, but of our dear Mother Earth herself.

They can look at the past of our party without rose-covered glasses because they are not invested in proving that what they did in the past was the "best at the time."

Stop whining that they seem too feel free to criticize you because they have studied the failures of some of us (me included) that allowed a GOP to get away with pretending they might actually "work" with us for decades. And still believe that unbelievable pipe dream that works against our interests at every turn.

But best of all the Young Dems feel free to fight. They know that they have nothing to lose but their very futures.

So stop complaining my fellow seniors. Have some bitter tea instead of wine and start to appreciate that the Young Dems have much they can do to help us, and even teach us!

[wasupaloopa]

1. I'm 73 today. Younger people have to work with older people to achieve the goals. No one can do it

alone.

[Kurt V.]

4. happy birthday!

[wasupaloopa]

30. Thank you

[Hortensis]

92. You still got another decade or two before you can get away with

whining, though. And slobbering.

Just another way of sayin' "Happy Birthday" and congrats.

[R B Garr]

5. Happy Birthday!

[wasupaloopa]

31. Thank you

[JoeOtterbein]

7. Happy Birthday!

Have fun!

[wasupaloopa]

32. Thank you

[YOHABLO]

40. You are 73 years young. Happy B day. Funny how older employees train the younger ones.

Then they cast us aside.

[sandensea]

48. Hey! Happy Birthday!

It's my sister's birthday as well.

Although she's a little to the right of me, she can't stand Cheeto or Republicans in general either.

You know, most Tauruses I've met tend to be progressive - even left-wing, I'd say.

Fairness and rewarding hard work are very high on their list of priorities, from what I've seen.

Again, Happy Birthday - and All the Best for the year ahead!

[left-of-center2012]

2. I think you've got it backwards

Most of the attack posts I see on DU are trying to tear down Biden for what he said 30 years ago.

If these young'uns have something to say,
let them toot their own horn instead of trying to tear others down.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. It's always tough when we're in a period of transition.

It's obvious that the young want to find their own way and have past mistakes from the older generation to use as a guide to decisions they might want to avoid. Let's not break their spirits.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. Break their spirits? Either they're tough enough, or they aren't. This ain't tiddlywinks, and

not everybody gets a trophy for participation.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. Sooo, the answer is to support moderate Democrats who buckle whenever Republicans

call them over for compromise? Who's the tiddlywink in that scenario?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Thanks for saying that... it is obvious, yet often overlooked.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[emmaverybo]

24. Agree with you. Heartily. I am 71, former college teacher so most of my life has been among the

young. Before that, a high school teacher. Before that, worked with youth in a non-profit. Also did an internship at our local youth guidance center.
I have always felt most comfortable and inspired by young people.
But I am not appreciative of the tone I encounter in some political spaces where older politicians and activists are painted in the most unfavorable and stereotypical terms, the mere fact of youth elevated as an ideal.
I have found much diversity in youth. I taught in a liberal city, perhaps one of the most liberal, at a college that had been the site in the sixties of mass student protests.
Yet many of my students years later were Bush fans! I had a great exchange with an African-American student, a conservative, who called me out for showing too much liberal bias in the classroom.

I happen to think some of our new house members could learn a thing or two from older hands, and also expand their experience and future prospects in working on being team members. That needn’t silence them or curtail their industrious energy in supporting and promoting policy.

Criticize Biden on issues, not age. Age is not a political leaning, as we can learn from the many radical elders still extant. At the same time, I recall millennials and younger prominent among that ugly new-Nazi mob at Charlottesville.

[Kurt V.]

3. K&R It's their world now and should have the say so about the future.

[George II]

49. It's not "their world", it's OUR world, we're not dead and buried yet. Tell that to Jimmy Carter!

[Kurt V.]

64. Its their world insofar as the decisions to be made going forward. That's all I'm saying

[highplainsdem]

72. No, it isn't. Because those older Democrats have younger relatives and friends they're concerned

about, and a planet they're concerned about.

It's absolutely insane to suggest that older people don't care about the future.

And it's an argument that will split the party and hand another victory to the GOP.

[George II]

84. Exactly - some are acting like there are no parents, grand parents, or great grand parents

in the Democratic Party. It's a dismissive and a divisive attitude to have toward older Americans.

[Progressive2020]

6. Gotta Agree

I am in my 50s and I used to be a Centrist. As I have gotten older, I have gotten tired of incremental change and small steps. We have no time for it. I now call myself a Progressive.

We have no time to waste on certain issues, especially Climate Change. We need ambitious, thorough, and comprehensive plans for systemic change. And we need to act sooner, not later. I am tired of biding time.

I see the younger generation and I am excited by their passion, knowledge, and enthusiasm. People like AOC and Emma Gonzalez are the future of America, and they give me hope.

[JoeOtterbein]

8. Me too...

...I've seen over and over that there are no points for nice guys in politics. Only cold clear objectivity. And the younger Dems to know that instinctually.

AOC, Emma, Katie Porter and many others great young Dems, are our best bets to protect our own future right now.

[blueinredohio]

33. I'm 62 and totally agree.

[denvine]

51. 64 and totally with you!

It's time for bold moves. Especially with climate change we must act quickly and decisively. Honestly, we didn't do a great job in government, hopefully the younger generation will take the bull by the horns. We all have to work together but we need their energy and their vision for the future.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Me FIVE!! The hell with the incrementalism... we need drastic change in this country!!

The "haves" keep accumulating, taking from the "have nots." The time for kissing up to greedy corporations is OVER!! We need REVOLUTIONARY tax reform!! REVOLUTIONARY environmental protection!! REVOLUTIONARY healthcare reform!! REVOLUTIONARY immigration reform!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[earthshine]

57. Centrism leads to the status quo. That's not good enough for me. nt

[George II]

78. What IS good enough for you? Anything other than "nt"?

[Uncle Joe]

9. Your ending reminded me of this song.

Thanks for the thread JoeOtterbein

[JoeOtterbein]

17. "...just look at them and sigh and know they..."

"...love you..."

[msongs]

10. leave the whining to the young-uns nt

[highplainsdem]

11. Wow, Joe, you make it sound as if younger Dems found the climate change issue under a cabbage leaf

and are therefore the very first to be clear about how important it is.

That's BS.

It's also BS that older Dems "allowed a GOP to get away with pretending they might actually 'work' with us for decades."

I'm not sure which "great Young Democrats" you're trying to come to the defense of here. I have my suspicions but won't name them.

I'm guessing they're the more leftwing members of a freshman class in the House, a freshman Democratic class that happens to be in the majority only because Democrats were able to gain that majority with more moderate candidates, thanks in large part to the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.

People standing on others' shoulders are ill advised to attack those who helped them up.

And btw, any charge that older people don't care about the future is IMO slander.

Especially when it's aimed at liberal Democrats, which would be pretty much everyone here.

[JoeOtterbein]

14. I'm a older liberal Dem too.

Although I made no such "charge" I know the past. And I know that we have made the same mistake, over and over, to try to appease "the middle ground."

We ended up with Trump, the GOP SCOTUS & Senate, most state senate & houses and stand at very real risk of losing much more if we continue to waste time.

We need action. I do not see that from our previously approved elders.

[highplainsdem]

25. Yes, we need action. We won't get that without political power. We won't get political power

by pretending that leftwing Democrats are more popular than they are.

I'm close to your age. I remember older friends who supported Gene McCarthy in the '68 primary and refused to vote for Humphrey. They helped elect Nixon. Just as Sanders supporters who refused to support HRC later helped elect Trump.

I do NOT want to see the party go down that road again.

[Progressive2020]

28. 1968 Election

I referred to 1968 in another post in this thread. I would disagree with you though about why Humphrey lost. He lost because he was too moderate, too vanilla, too mainstream.

A choice between Nixon and Nixon-lite is why Humphrey lost. There was not enough distinction between the two candidates.

If McCarthy had been the Democratic nominee, he might have beaten Nixon. It would have been a clear, stark choice between an Anti-War Candidate (McCarthy) and a Pro-War Candidate (Nixon).

[highplainsdem]

39. No, that isn't why he lost. Some facts based on data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey_1968_presidential_campaign

On Election Day, Humphrey was defeated by Nixon 301 to 191 in the electoral college. Wallace received 46, all in the Deep South. The popular vote was much closer as Nixon edged Humphrey 43.42% to 42.72%, with a margin of approximately 500,000 votes. Humphrey carried his home state of Minnesota and Texas, the home state of President Johnson (as well as Maine, running-mate Ed Muskie's home state). He also won most of the Northeast and Michigan, but lost the West to Nixon and the South to Wallace.[102] Humphrey conceded the race to Nixon, and stated that he would support him as president. On his way out he remarked: "I've done my best."[103]

Post election polls showed that Humphrey lost the white vote with 38%, nine points behind Nixon, but won the nonwhite vote solidly, 85% to 12%,[104] including 97% of African-Americans. African-Americans favored Humphrey because of his record on civil rights, and their desire to quickly end the war in Vietnam, where blacks were overrepresented. The racial divide in the election had widened since 1964, and was attributed to civil rights protests and race riots.[105] Humphrey won 45% of the female vote, two points ahead of Nixon, but lost to the Republican among males, 41% to 43%. Voters with only a grade school education supported Humphrey 52% to 33% over Nixon, while Nixon won among both those with no higher education than high school (43% to 42%) and those who graduated from college (54% to 37%). Occupation demographics mirrored these numbers with manual-labor workers supporting Humphrey 50% to 37%, and with white-collar (47% to 41%) and professionals (56% to 34%) favoring Nixon. Humphrey won among young voters (under 30 years old) by 47% to 38%, and also edged Nixon among those between 30 and 49 years, with 44% to 41%. Nixon won among voters over 50 years, 47% to 41%. Catholics backed Humphrey with 59%, twelve points ahead of Nixon, but Protestants favored Nixon, 49% to 35%. Humphrey lost the Independent vote 31% to 44%, with 25% going to Wallace, and won a lower percentage among Democrats (74%) than Nixon won among Republicans (86%).[104] This discrepancy was connected to the tough Democratic primary election that caused some former McCarthy, Kennedy or McGovern supporters to vote for Nixon or Wallace as a protest.[105]

I

Look at how close the popular vote was.

And notice the last two sentences about why Humphrey got a smaller percentage of the Democratic vote than Nixon got of thee Republican vote.

That's what I was talking about.

More on what was going on during the campaign:

On September 30, hoping to separate himself from the policies of the Johnson administration at the advice of O'Brien who noted that he needed the anti-war vote to win in New York and California,[80] Humphrey delivered a televised speech in Salt Lake City to a nationwide audience, and announced that if he was elected, he would put an end to the bombing of North Vietnam, and called for a ceasefire.[81] He labeled the new policy "as an acceptable risk for peace."[82] The plan was compared to Nixon's, which the candidate stated would not be revealed until Inauguration Day.[83] After the speech, anti-war protesters stopped shadowing Humphrey's appearances, and a few McCarthy supporters joined the campaign. Donations totaling $300,000 were immediately made to Humphrey,[84] and he also improved in the polls, cutting Nixon's lead to single digits by mid-October.[78][85][86] Meanwhile, Nixon tried to shift the emphasis of the campaign to the issue of law and order, and declared that a vote for Humphrey, would amount to "a vote to continue a lackadaisical, do nothing attitude toward the crime crisis in America."[87] While campaigning in San Antonio, Humphrey went on the attack against Nixon. He accused the Republican nominee of playing politics with human rights, and claimed that he was "on the road to defeat." Hoping to gain favor among the Hispanic community, Humphrey alleged that Nixon had never discussed the concerns of Hispanic-Americans during the course of the campaign.[88] Nixon continued to tie Humphrey to Johnson. He argued that the administration was playing politics with the Vietnam War by trying to complete a treaty before the election to favor the Vice President. Humphrey fired back at Nixon's allegations, stating that the former Vice President was using "the old Nixon tactic of unsubstantiated insinuation"[89] and requested that he show evidence for his claims.[89] Humphrey challenged Nixon to a series of presidential debates, but the Republican nominee declined,[90] largely due to his uncomfortable experience at the 1960 presidential debates, and to deny recognition to the populist American Independent Party candidate, Governor George Wallace of Alabama, who would have been included at the event.[91] Both the Humphrey and Nixon campaigns were concerned that Wallace would take a sizable amount of states in the electoral college and force the House of Representatives to decide the election. Although Wallace had focused most of his campaign on the south, he was drawing large crowds during appearances in the north.[92] Both campaigns delegated a large amount of resources to denounce Wallace as a "frustrated segregationist".[93] As election day neared, Wallace fell in the polls, greatly diminishing the chance that he would influence the result.[94]

A few days before the election, Humphrey gained the endorsement of his former rival Eugene McCarthy. During a stop in Pittsburgh, Humphrey stated that the endorsement made him a "happy man."[95] The hopes of victory for Humphrey also began to look up as a bombing pause was achieved and that negotiations had progressed, cutting Nixon's 18 point lead to 2 points at the end of October. The Soviet Union had tried to influence the North Vietnamese to soften on the negotiations to prevent a Nixon victory,[11] but Nixon publicly accused President Johnson of speeding up the negotiations. Contemporary sources reveal that Nixon was personally involved in preventing the South Vietnamese from coming to the negotiation table, through the use of operative Anna Chennault who advised Saigon that a Nixon administration would offer them a better deal.[96][97] Members of the campaign later claimed that Humphrey did not bring this up before the election, because he did not want to appear desperate while polls placed him even with Nixon.[98] Humphrey held his final campaign rally at the Houston Astrodome on November 3 alongside President Johnson. Governor Connally did not attend the event, causing suspicion that he would back Nixon, but he later assured Humphrey that he would not do so. During his speech at the rally, Humphrey asked Americans to base their vote on hope rather than fear.[99] The next day, the eve of the election, he appeared in Los Angeles with Muskie, and was greeted by 100,000 supporters.[100] Later that day, Humphrey and Nixon each held four-hour televised forums from Los Angeles on rival television networks. Humphrey's on ABC-TV at 8:30pm EST, Nixon's on NBC-TV at 9pm EST. Humphrey, with Muskie by his side, fielded questions from a live studio audience and a phone bank of celebrities including Frank Sinatra and Paul Newman. The Nixon telecast featured no interaction with anyone other than sports personally Bud Wilkinson who read queries from index cards beside rows of volunteers taking calls. Muskie, commenting on the Republican broadcast from their studios noted that Spiro Agnew was nowhere to be found and how it appeared to be staged. Nixon tried to reverse Humphrey's boost from the bombing halt by stating that he had been advised that "tons of supplies"[101] were being sent along the Ho Chi Minh Trail by the North Vietnamese, a shipment that could not be stopped. Humphrey described these claims as "irresponsible,"[101] which prompted Nixon to proclaim that Humphrey "doesn't know what's going on."[101] McCarthy called in during Humphrey's telethon and affirmed his support for the ticket. Edward Kennedy videotaped an endorsement for Humphrey from his home in Massachusetts.[100]

In no way was Humphrey's loss as simple as "he wasn't a strong enough anti-war candidate."

[Progressive2020]

53. Losses

Losses are often multi-factoral, but a pile of dense text like that above does not contradict the possibility that if the Dems had nominated someone more clearly anti-war that they might have won. There is no way to scientifically prove such an assertion, so I will just say that it is my opinion. Your opinion might differ.

Humphrey was permanently associated with Johnson and the war. Johnson declined to run because he was so unpopular due to the war. Humphrey was his VP and was therefore closely associated with Johnson and the war.

In my opinion, if the Dems fielded a clear anti-war candidate instead of Humphrey, they might have won. Your own post above says that many disgruntled Kennedy, McCarthy, or McGovern voters went over to Nixon. Those voters might well have stayed with the Democratic Party if Kennedy, McCarthy, or McGovern had been the nominee. I doubt many Yippie types would even think about voting for Nixon, but I am sure that most of them stayed home and did not vote for Humphrey. They would have mobilized and voted for an anti-war candidate, though.

[highplainsdem]

59. There's no particular reason to believe that a candidate who couldn't win the primary could win the

GE.

But believing that is often a favorite fantasy of primary-losing candidates and their supporters.

And again, you're trying to boil down a multifaceted, multi-issue election to just one issue.

Maybe that history course you've referred to did oversimplify that way.

But I remember that election. I saw Bobby Kennedy speak, and shook his hand. And as heartbroken as I was when he was assassinated, I didn't hesitate to spend a lot of hours at state Democratic headquarters that fall helping with the work to try to get Humphrey elected. And I thought the Democrats I knew who refused to vote for Humphrey because he wasn't a sufficiently pure anti-war candidate were idiots who helped elect Nixon.

[Progressive2020]

61. Well

Well thank you for your service to the Party in those days. I was just a young kid at the time. I understand it was a different era, but I think today when a candidate fails to win the Party's nomination, most (many, not all) of that candidates followers will vote for whomever does win the nom. Back then, the nomination process was different also.

I do not think it is a fantasy that another candidate might have been able to win in the General Election in 1968. I would call it speculation, not fantasy. And hopefully informed speculation. I think if we had Bobby Kennedy living and running in 1968, he probably would have defeated Nixon. I am less certain about McGovern and McCarthy, but as I have studied this stuff in the past, I think a lot of anti-war activists would have mobilized for them in a way that they would not have for Humphrey.

This is speculation on my part, but I think it is a studied speculation. But, I agree that some people are so enamored with their candidate that they lose their reason and develop fantasy scenarios about how and why their candidates lose. It is natural for people to concoct such stories when they invest so much emotion and commitment to a particular candidate.

I do not believe that I am one of those people. I try to vote based on principle over personality. There is also a difference between whom I would like to win and who I think has a better chance of getting elected. So, I have my wish list, but I try to be pragmatic about who I vote for.

I do think that some people "get married" to certain candidates early on. I try not to get too attached and base my vote on a calculus of who can get elected and accomplish certain policies. Anyway, I think there are many people who try to be rational about their vote. It is just that there are also those for whom their association with certain candidates is more emotional than rational. When you have people like that, they tend to have fantasy explanations for why their own candidate lost. I try to make my analysis based upon reality, not feelings.

[highplainsdem]

70. I was too young to vote in 1968. But I wasn't too young to see how protest votes (or not

voting) to "show the establishment" in your own party were foolish options, and it pained me to see older friends who'd backed Gene McCarthy say they wouldn't vote for Humphrey.

I do think Bobby Kennedy would have beaten Nixon. But we lost him. The party needed to unite around the nominee.

The GOP in this election would like nothing more than to see the youngest group of Democratic voters turn against a primary frontrunner who's winning all but that youngest group.

And any "older Democrats need to step aside" arguments play right into that divisiveness.

[bloom]

20. The Democrats have not been doing enough

about global warming. When they should have and could have known better.

Like it may finally be a campaign issue NOW.

Even in 2008, 2012, 2016 - where was the issue?

Seems that corporations silenced politicians for the most part.

I attribute some of the younger, liberal dems running and being elected to Bernie Sanders. Not Pelosi. (And I was not a big Bernie fan.)

Some people actually got some hope that something could be done without corporate help.

That may be a pipe dream - but it seems to be our only hope at this point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. I'm with you... we need a real environmental protection plan that will save the planet!!

Gotta give Gov. Inslee credit for bringing the most attention to this issue, making it the centerpiece of his campaign. Jay's moving up on my Top-10 list of preferred Demovratic candidates precisely because of his progressive agenda for combating climate change and saving the environment. Good for him!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

83. What more could Democrats have done, specifically?

What Democrats were "silenced by corporations" and which corporations?

I recall Al Gore not being silenced, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.

And if you are going to diss Pelosi, you are dissing the ACA, and other real progress Democrats have made.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obamas-green-new-deal-worked-climate-change.html

[murielm99]

44. Remember that Boomer, Al Gore?

He won the Nobel Prize, or shared it anyway, for his work on climate change. And there was the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

His are some of the shoulders the younger leftwing Democrats are standing on.

I will have more faith in some of the freshman congress people when they show that they know how to stay home and be team players. There is work to be done in their own districts that is going undone.

[mcar]

74. How quickly some forget

[BlueWI]

58. So what bold legislation have we sponsored, if we're so concerned?

I am 55. I agree with the OP. We've had a supermajority, presidencies, statehouses.

What do we have to show for our concerns? Paris Accords, Kyoto? Not enough. 12 years and counting before irreversible effects.

And we're complaining because young folks are judging us?

Sad.

[ehrnst]

86. By bold, you mean legislation that's actually been passed?

Last edited Wed May 15, 2019, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Or legislation that promises the moon, but is too vague to actually get passed?

Obama got stuff done. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obamas-green-new-deal-worked-climate-change.html

[barbtries]

13. i'm 63 too.

agree with you 100%. mistakes have been made. will be made. but we're at a tipping point and they are a reason to hope.

[corbettkroehler]

15. I'm 50-Something And Concur

Nicely expressed!

[RandySF]

16. Most of the complaints I hear go the opposite direction.

[yaesu]

18. I like new energy, ideas but I also want experience, I don't ever want another used car salesman

running, ruining the country again.

[jalan48]

19. Great post, It's time for leadership to get bold about climate change-young people get it.

[Progressive2020]

23. I Am Reminded

I am reminded of a college history course I took that covered the 1968 Democratic National Convention. There was a split between the more traditional, established Democrats and the younger, more counter-cultural factions.

These Yippies (Youth International Party) were outside of the framework of the normal Democratic Party, but represented a more radical approach that led the cheer "Dump The Hump!" (referring to Hubert Humphrey, the establishment Democratic Candidate).

Anyway, the Dems were divided between the more establishment wing (Humphrey) and the more progressive anti-war wing (McGovern and McCarthy), and they ended up nominating the moderate, and losing the general election.

One lesson that we should learn is not to fight each other. We need to form a coalition between more moderate and progressive factions. I think we see that happen when more mainstream candidates adopt some more progressive positions.

So, we do not have a severe internal conflict over a war (Vietnam) like the Party had in 1968. We should learn that internal unity and a coalition between moderates and progressives makes more sense than us just fighting each other and handing Trump another win. I think that we can and probably will win, though. Just my two cents.

[Me.]

26. And I'm Tired Of Dems Bashing Dems

Any DEms Bashing Other Dems

[sheshe2]

45. Me?

I am with you Me.

[Me.]

65. ...

[sheshe2]

91. ...

[mcar]

75. +1!

[NRaleighLiberal]

27. 63 here and I completely agree. K and R

I've never been, and will never be, centrist, moderate or establishment anything.

[Susan Calvin]

29. 67, and far from complaining,

I feel they speak for me. I'm tired of corporate Dems, or corporate anything for that matter. Corporations are a huge part of our current problem. Maybe the majority of it.

[LiberalArkie]

35. I am 71 and have more confidence in the younger ones than I do

Than the ones that are close to my age or older. It is going to be their world pretty quick

[Bettie]

36. THANK YOU!

I'm 52 and I'm tired of hearing how much people despise these bright young people because their ideas are different and they want to see change.

When the current crop of old-timers was young, they likely had ideas that the old folks thought were too much, too soon, just not right...and now they are the old timers.

I try to remember every day that each and every generation declares that the next is wrong, too wild, too willing to change the status quo.

[FailureToCommunicate]

37. Young Dems can criticize anyone they want...

as long as they show up on election day, and vote for the eventual nominee.

By the millions.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Got that right!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

90. Democrats.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. A-fucking-men!!!

[relayerbob]

41. At 62, I wholly agree

I only wish they would take to the streets. Unlike the 1960s, there would be a lot of us older folks there to support them this time

[Xipe Totec]

42. Let the word go forth from this time and place,

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

- JFK

[George II]

43. This is grossly offensive to us who have 40, 50, or even 60+ years "invested", as you put it....

....in the Democratic Party and America. I don't know that any of us are "proving what we did in the past" as you so cavalierly dismiss our position. You may forget the elections of the 1980s, when our party lost the electoral college by 489-49 in 1980, then by 525-13, and then 426-111 in 1988. We worked our ASSES off to resurrect our party after those three disastrous elections.

I have no problem with young Dems feeling free to fight, but they have to know and understand what they're fighting for.

We don't "whine", we continue the work we've been doing for decades. You act as though we don't worry about the future, but most of us have children, grand children, and great grandchildren whose future we're concerned with.

You owe us "old establishment Dems" a huge apology!!!

[sheshe2]

47. Plus a million.

I have nieces, nephews and grands that I have worked for to leave them with a better life. How dare anyone say I did not.

[NurseJackie]

69. "You owe us "old establishment Dems" a huge apology!!!" --- ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!

You owe us "old establishment Dems" a huge apology!!!

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!! The entire OP was about as offensive as it gets.

[mcar]

76. Yeah, who's whining?

In Florida, it is mostly middle aged and older Democrats, mostly women, who are doing the very hard work of fighting Republicans and corruption. I'm tired of the constant trashing of us on this and other boards.

[JoeOtterbein]

79. I'm offended because I know for a fact we do not fight hard enough...

...and will continue to lose unless we (me too) admit our failures. Sad!

[George II]

80. "WE" do not fight hard enough? Who are "WE"? I've been fighting for 40+ years....

....I've served my local party for the last 20 years, have been an officer of our party since 2006. I've been elected to local office several times, and have served on Commissions in town since 2005.

Go into a campaign office any year in October and look around. What do you see? A bunch of gray haired "OLD" people making phone calls, stuffing envelopes, writing post cards, etc.

One more thing, try telling THIS couple that they're "old establishment Dems":

?itok=Om8iBJyb

[JoeOtterbein]

81. Sorry but WE (you and I) did not fight enough. Roe vs. Wade may be gone soon because...

...we do not fight hard enough. Let's learn from our mistakes & failures, instead of complaining about, our younger members. They want to fight. WE need to fight harder. Not rest on our very-thin laurels.

[George II]

85. Speak for yourself, please.

[JoeOtterbein]

87. I am. That is why I use my real name for everything I ever wrote on the internet since '92.

And I always will.

[shanny]

46. Agree 100%

[colsohlibgal]

50. The Reagan Legacy

Oh yeah, the crazy young liberals like OAC.....well go check out the top tax rate during Eisenhower’s time in office.....and it went down a bit after but was at least 60% till Ronnie slashed it.

Dwight Eisenhower was a republican too......now democrats are out of line calling for higher tax rates on the top brackets?

[earthshine]

60. I'm 54 and I agree with this OP. We need change. nt

[betsuni]

62. Mommy, there's an old establishment Dem under my bed!

[Hortensis]

63. I don't even know who you're talking about.

By far most young dems, voters and elected reps, are part of the party's great coalition. Is that handful of new reps who ran on counterculture campaigns being called "Young Dems"?

I'll tell you, though, most of the new reps in congress ran to be Democrats and are working hard as Democrats to accomplish the goals they ran on and elect more Democrats.

We elect more young people to our legislatures every 2 years without fail. And those we elected 4, 6, 8 years ago didn't somehow become old just by being relected.

Nor are young people somehow not young because they know that democracy requires cooperation to achieve common goals. This is as real as gravity -- democracies function BY different factions and parties coming together to achieve agreement. That is what representative democracy IS.

Most young people understand that very well, Otterbein. Of course. It requires only modest intelligence and basic self honesty. How sad, and dysfunctional, and problematic, that some can grow old in a liberal democracy never respecting what they have or understanding how and why it works.

[Me.]

66. So Well Said

Per usual

[betsuni]

67. [phone]

[NurseJackie]

68. Well said! I get so weary of people taking a dump on loyal Democrats as this post has done.

Most young people understand that very well, Otterbein. Of course. It requires only modest intelligence and basic self honesty. How sad, and dysfunctional, and problematic, that some can grow old in a liberal democracy never respecting what they have or understanding how and why it works.

Well said! I get so weary of people taking a dump on loyal Democrats as this post has done. Thank you for putting things in perspective and for trying to correct the record.

Nor are young people somehow not young because they know that democracy requires cooperation to achieve common goals. This is as real as gravity -- democracies function BY different factions and parties coming together to achieve agreement. That is what representative democracy IS.

There are those among us who get too wrapped up inside emotions and are therefore unable to clearly see reality. THIS, your description, your summary... is reality. Thank you.

[Hortensis]

71. It's grim to see the insane degree of hyperpartisanship

that's taken over the right now infecting some on the left. I doubt 1 in 100 has stopped to seriously wonder what next? What would come after democracy?

Given the theme that interparty cooperation is not just impossible but effectively immoral, I'm assuming this new wave of such posts has Russian and Republican agitprop behind it and is not just response to Sanders on Biden messaging.

I'm so grateful for the large majorities in the midterms who voted to protect stability, function and decency to government. I literally sleep better because of it.

[NurseJackie]

73. And this isn't the only OP that expresses the same kind of toxic hyperpartisanship...

And this isn't the only OP that expresses the same kind of toxic hyperpartisanship (there's an active one right now, but I won't link to it for obvious reasons.) It's basically a "call to arms" that would have the effect of increased division that will only end one way... with the permanent weakening of, or the destruction of having an effective and respected democracy. It's just too insane.

[vlyons]

77. I'm a 72 yr baby boomer and aging hippie

I love these young people. My generation were the flower children and the anti Vietnam war protesters, and the civil rights marchers. My generation believed strongly to always question authority. Somewhere along the way, the next generation, the yippies, sold out to Wall St. Today's 20-somethings have their own vision for dealing with climate change and our corrupt government. It's their turn to set the agenda for their vision. I say let's support them and get out of their way.

[still_one]

82. I am tired of divisionary flamebait OPs dividing Democrats. The OP is "COMPLAINING" about

do-called "OLD ESTABLISHMENT" Democrats, dictating that they should NOT complain about so-called "YOUNG DEMOCRATS"

What draconian bullshit and utter rubbish

The Democratic party is not a monolith, and the stereotyping of what an "establishment Democrat", or a "young Democrat" is, comes right out of the pages of these so-called Justice Democrats

You want to debate issues, then debate issues, you want to divide Democrats, then continue posting garbage like this

[crazytown]

88. And I'm sick of DSA members whining

that the Democratic Party is not trying to overthrow capitalism.

[themaguffin]

89. I'm tired of the word "establishment" being used. It's bullshit to use it.

[colsohlibgal]

93. Agree Totally

Time for a new New Deal, time to have Richie Riches taxed like they were from Eisenhower to Reagan. And Eisenhower was a republican before that party went off the rails.

[BeckyDem]

94. Yes. As a woman well into her sixties, I agree.

They are the future.