Clinton Losing Millennial Support Nationally and in Key States

[haele]

63. No, but Ross Perot pulled enough younger republican voters from GHW Bush, allowing

W. Clinton to win at least two critical states, one of which being California. It's very difficult for a relative unknown to beat an incumbent, no matter how "blah" the incumbent seemed to be.

See, in 1991, Somalia and the Horn of Africa was just starting to blow up (this just after Desert Shield/Desert Storm), and there were already rumors that we might be getting involved as part of NATO in the Balkans. That, along with the bad taste Iran-Contra and the "anti-communist" adventures in South/Central America that could be tied around GHW Bush from his Reagan era operations, along with economic factors such as the S&L debacle, factories closing, manufacturing going overseas - well, many younger republicans - the ones who were born in the 1950's and 1960's - thought that in that environment, Ross Perot would be a good protest vote alternative to the New World Order they saw being built up by the Bircher/Randroid operatives that controlled the Republican party of Nixon/Reagan/Bush.

Older Republicans still voted the party line, but out of the groups of either (sic) Independent voters and 20- to 30-year old Republicans I knew, a full 70% of those who voted cast a ballot for Perot. Perot was actually more of a spoiler for GHW Bush than Nader was for Gore.

Now, Lee Atwater's group had Clinton in their sights long before the Democratic Primary started. As soon as it looked as if he'd be the Democratic nominee, I was hearing variations of "Slick/Hick Willy, "draft-dodging communist operative", "hate the crooked coward, (they) wouldn't shed a tear if someone shoots him before the election" - mostly from supposed independents, who ended up voting for Perot because GHW Bush was just a bit too NWO for them.
They just couldn't imagine their protest vote would actually get their "mortal enemy" elected...

I can easily see much the same thing happening now.

History tells us that with very few exceptions, political and policy change begins at the bottom.
The top tier candidates are very rarely be the ones to actually change the status quo; it's the county commissioners, the local judges, the state representatives, the Congressional races where change and protest votes count.

Here's the deal with the way things run in the United States of America.
The Constitution is set up so that the Will of the people is heard through their Representatives. The President is in charge of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. If you want your voice to be heard, if you want things to change, vote for your Representatives, don't let the Chamber of Commerce and the Dominionist Mega-Churches elect your Representatives.

If we had a Parliamentary system, it would be different. You can make your protest vote and still have a government that works reasonably well for most people. We'd be Canada. But we're stuck with what we have, unless enough people actually want enough of a civil war to change things.

Haele