Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Time to take baby boomers off the ticket [View all]Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)43. Your definition of generation places my parents and I into the same generation, which I find silly.
It depends on how old your parents were when you were born.
I was born in 65 - and I am in GenX.
My parents were the earliest born after WWII. Both sets of grandparents were involved in or served in the WWII effort - hence the "boom" in childbirth after that war.
My dad served in Vietnam, a different generation's war.
So to give even more nuance, my mother was the firstborn (born in 44) from WWII parents, but her sister, my aunt, was the very lastborn (born in 63).
So my aunt and I are less than two years apart - but she is a Boomer and I am a Gen-X'er. And believe me, the generational difference of our parents and ourselves shows up in everything from our perspectives to our fashion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the census includes those born 1964 and after-- as young as 53 today... This is ageist assholery
hlthe2b
Nov 2017
#2
Your definition of generation places my parents and I into the same generation, which I find silly.
Turn CO Blue
Nov 2017
#43
Don't care. It's an absurd definition, to include Korean Conflict babies. So you AND
WinkyDink
Nov 2017
#68
I'm fine with electing younger boomers, but I generally agree with the point of the piece.
greatauntoftriplets
Nov 2017
#9
Some people still in the "prime of their lives" in 70s & 80s, even some in 90s-don't WASTE them.
Sunlei
Nov 2017
#10
JC is a Great American & active. Rs want Ds to forget about midterms & focus on 2020.
Sunlei
Nov 2017
#40
Very few of them will be handle the complexities of the world as it exists today
Blue_Adept
Nov 2017
#32
The age of presidents going back to the 1700s is kind of irrelevant. People age better today.
Gidney N Cloyd
Nov 2017
#11
62+ years of age -- 67.1% of Democrats turned out to vote; 71.5% or GOPers voted; 57.5% of other
Hoyt
Nov 2017
#21
Like I said, it doesn't mean much more than older folks tend to vote more often than younger.
Hoyt
Nov 2017
#27
The term "Baby Boom" refers to the generation sired by returning WWII soldiers. Obama's year, 1961,
WinkyDink
Nov 2017
#13
Such a delight to have FINALLY come across someone who has read the book.
PoindexterOglethorpe
Nov 2017
#60
It is so important for people to read that first book in its entirety.
PoindexterOglethorpe
Nov 2017
#62
Don't have issue with older folks running, but would like to see more younger candidates and women
Hoyt
Nov 2017
#24
I think we let the primaries determine who the people want as the Presidential candidate.
jalan48
Nov 2017
#45
Imagine if Von Drehle had written that women should not make decisions affecting other people.
CBHagman
Nov 2017
#47
Doesn't matter gender or age if WE don't get out and vote and call in to all the RW talk shows with
sadiegirl
Nov 2017
#66