Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Where do we go from here?
- Thread starter rodoheel
- Start date
- Replies: 1K
- Views: 24K
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,181
You claimed “pragmatism” alongside “normal life” and voting for ttump.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,237
I think a lot of millennials and my folks (Gen Z) aren’t registered as D or R and don’t feel tied to either party. Makes them more likely to swing in unpredictable ways from cycle to cycle, especially during times of economic distress.
There is a lot being prewritten. I don’t think these gains for Republicans among young(er) voters will be particularly durable if the economic situation in the U.S. doesn’t improve considerably. Our period of political history is not conducive to incumbent parties staying in power. Mostly due to there being systemic issues that can’t be/wont be addressed by Democratic or Republican administrations.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,033
Trump did get a big swing in his millennial vote percentage over his last time around. Harris won them by 4 points but Biden won them by 19% points. Harris's most successful generation was generation Z which she won by 11% points But she lost ground there too. Biden won them by 20 points.
Last edited:
AlbionAmerican
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 85
They aren't looking at it big picture, they're buying what is being sold because they think it benefits them. I dont mean pragmatic in that its good for the country, I mean its pragmatic in how politics impacts their life, its fundamentally non-ideological from the point of view of economics. Whether it does or doesn't is the point, their intention isn't ideological, its far more self-interest dictating their choice. That's what I've seen constantly from Millennials who voted for Sanders, to Biden in some sense, to Trump this time around.
AlbionAmerican
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 85
100% right
- Messages
- 1,366
I find it entertaining that my generation is sandwiched between generations that have seemingly always needed/wanted policies tailored to them. We have watched Boomers dominate the world and build it exactly to their liking. Now we have to morph to fit the needs of millennial and Gen Z.
Wanna know what nobody has ever once asked in politics? What do the Gen X folks think?
Wanna know what nobody has ever once asked in politics? What do the Gen X folks think?
AlbionAmerican
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 85
Well that's because in the era of appealing to the masses in politics, GenX really doesn't matter.
In an alternative future where politics isn't trying to appeal to the masses, GenX would probably control the conversation. Millennials are very likely going to end up being highly indifferent to politics in the future as their problems subside in the years to come.
- Messages
- 1,366
So when did this "era of appealing to the masses in politics" begin?Well that's because in the era of appealing to the masses in politics, GenX really doesn't matter.
In an alternative future where politics isn't trying to appeal to the masses, GenX would probably control the conversation. Millennials are very likely going to end up being highly indifferent to politics in the future as their problems subside in the years to come.
Because I've been an adult Gen X member for nearly 30 years and there's never been an appeal to our generation.
There's definitely been an expectation that we shoulder the load of financially taking care of generations before and after us, but never much care toward our thoughts.
Maybe that's why we are just kinda "over it" politically at this point and other folks don't understand the cynicism.
To a large part, you have to show a willingness to be a part of the process to benefit from it. I don't think that's best but politicians have always catered to those who support them. Staying home and not participating because no one cares ensures that no one is going to put much effort into reaching out. It's about ROI. They're are going to concentrate on those who will help them get reelected. Maybe not the best for Americans but it 's about the best that we can do. The only way to have a voice and make the sort of changes you want is to get your hands dirty. Calling for a plague on both your hoses gets you doubly ignored.
- Messages
- 1,366
My hands have been dirty for 2 decades. I've done thousands of hours of phone banking and canvassing. I've donated money i didn't really have to donate. I've worked to promote candidates that I thought were better for everyone, not just me and sometimes not even necessarily me.
If it is about ROI for the politicians and about ROI for older voters and about ROI for younger voters, then where is the ROI for those of us who are say 45-60?
For example, by the time I retire, I will have paid into social security for at least 45 years. I've been working since I was 15 and never without a job since then. How much ROI do you think I'll see on that investment? My guess...zero. Those older than me seem content to only protect it for themselves and those younger know it's going away and don't care.
That's just one of many ways those of us sandwiched in the middle are sick to death of hearing about the woes of everyone younger and older. It isnt as if we hit adulthood in some sort of guilded age. We just figured our own shit out. We bought our first houses and watched 30% of their value evaporate overnight because those older and wiser than us ran the mortgage market into the ditch. We figured it out. We were the first generation who largely borrowed money to get through college and we figured that out and figured out how to repay it. We mostly came from screwy family situations and we're known as "latch-key" kids for a reason. We figured it out.
I'm proud as hell of younger people for mostly figuring things out for themselves these days. However, politically, I'm sick to death of the whining from both sides of the age spectrum.
Last edited:
Not addressing you in particular but your assertion that your generation was over it.
I will note that that age group is always disillusioned. They've accepted that they didn't see the world change like they anticipated, their levels of success in their life and profession are closely defined and they are worried about their retirement and what that will bring. It damned sure scared me to death. I ain't lying when I tell you I had more suicidal thoughts then than any time since my teen years.
Once again, I don't mean to be humoring you. I can't really put myself in your place either individually or generationally. For numerous reasons, I'm more of the world than in it but that's a tough age.
- Messages
- 1,649
Or dead...
How left-wing is Hasan Piker?
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,669
Very. But even though he’s way to the left of me, that’s one of the only interviews I’ve listened to since the election that was worth the time.
Sorry for late, holiday response.
NOTE: Perception vs policy positions
I look at campaigns same as marketing campaigns. What matters is perception that you convey to the buyer or voter. The broad strokes thing. Value to the buyer or voter.
Getting in the weeds on specific issues which Democrats tend to do, while necessary, will confuse voters if you're not careful. Voters on average don't hear about 25,000 or whatever. Average voters know how bad Trump is. But they may have picked up on the perception that Trump was fighting for them.
Granted. There was a bad perception of Trump. But this election was equal in that there was also a bad perception of Harris. Much of that had to do with the fact she wouldn't throw Joe under the bus and make clear she was different. She would argue there wasn't time for that. But wasn't that the whole point of changing horses?
You can claim she ran as a centrist.........but not really when it came to voter's perceptions. They knew Biden governed from the left and she was tied to that.
This Presidential Election was screwed up. But evidence is pointing to Democrat perception issues across the board. Look at the Senate races in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn. Those candidates worked hard to put some distance between themselves and the perception of the Democratic party. It was interesting to me, that in Arizona, that Gallego flat out ran away from his progressive roots. Why did he have to do that against a screwed up, Trump like opponent?
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,237
Gallego didn’t run away from his progressive roots. He actually ran hard on the issues of corporate price gouging and antitrust. He had the same message on the border as the Harris campaign.
I don’t think the issues with Biden were that he “governed from the left.” It was like you said: the Democratic Party has major perception issues. A ton of voters perceive them as being an out of touch, technocratic party that is overly concerned with the interests of individual interest groups/minority groups over the interests of the wider American public.
Running left of economic issues actually helps this perception, to the extent that the economic message is a universal message, which is what Gallego did.
Democrats ran ahead of the top of the ticket in other areas, as you say. They did this despite having the same economic message as Harris and the Biden admin, largely. Then you have Dan Osborn, who was an unapologetic economic populist and ran well ahead of Harris in Nebraska.
I just thinking saying Democrats need to run a more centrist campaign needs to be fleshed out when people say that. It means different things to different people.
If you say Dems need to get back to a message that is more in line with the majority of the population, then I agree with that. That message isn’t necessarily a “centrist” message. Instead of left vs right, we need to think on lines of system vs anti-system.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
1. We don't pay enough attention to strength of schedule. Josh Shapiro, Josh Stein and Gretchen Whitmer all look like world-beaters, until you realize that they beat the GOP JV team -- actually, not even the JV team. The JV bench warmers and the manager who got kicked off the team.
Same with Gallego. Yes he won and for that I'm grateful. But he would have lost to any GOPer other than Kari Lake. That's not necessarily an indictment of him or his campaign. Zona has a very long history with the GOP, and Gallego was fighting in a tough environment. I simply think it would be a mistake to think, "we should be more like Gallego" just because he won.
2. As for Osborn, I hate to say it but that is fools' gold. We've seen this play out many times before. There are no lessons to be had from what turned out to be not a close race at all. Texas should be the guide here. We got excited about Beto because there were polls in October showing him winning -- but he didn't and it wasn't all that close. We got excited about Osborn because there were polls showing him in the lead . . . but the polls were wrong and he lost by almost 7 points.
And in terms of Nebraska, Osborn had several advantages. First, not running as a Dem is helpful there because so much of politics is negative partisanship, which was initially not available when people didn't really know who he was. Second, Fischer was coasting, thinking that she had no real opposition. She's also the most unpopular Senator in the country among her constituents, for reasons I don't know and don't care to learn. Third, it happens that enthusiasm for safe incumbents can be low, because the voters don't think there's much of a race. When it turned out to be closer than people thought, the GOP voters held their noses (if they don't like Fischer -- again, I don't know why) and did their jobs.
In other words, as soon as the GOP started to pay attention that race, Fischer coasted. That's not to say anything bad about Osborn or his campaign. It's just not informative. He lost by a margin that would be considered quite big in other states. That he outperformed Harris isn't really significant. It's probably just Jamie Harrison vs Lindsey Graham. Or anybody vs Ted Cruz. Or that weird election where a Dem actually won AL because the GOP ran a child molester and apparently some GOP folks still cared about that.
3. This isn't unique to Dems. Remember how Larry Hogan was going to make MD a nail biter? He lost by 12 points. He made it a little closer than it had been in previous years -- the Dem got only 55% of the vote instead of the usual 60 -- but I don't think Republicans are going to looking to Larry Hogan for tips on how to win in blue areas.
The problem that goes both ways is that the GOP are no more able to reverse their MD fortunes in one cycle than Dems can in NE. It will take a sustained effort. But how? In what direction? Osborn's candidacy told us nothing useful. It's possible that his campaign does point a good way forward, but we don't really know. Maybe there's a world in which the GOP can take a Larry Hogan strategy to the Senate by, say, 2032 -- but again, how?
The other problem is that all politics has become identity politics, and it's mostly nationalized as well. So what is most important by far -- by really far -- is the national message. And Dan Osborn's ability to lose by less in NE or Larry Hogan losing by less in MD isn't going to tell us what works. It's pretty easy to go from 40% to 45%. As Dems in NC know all too well, as do GOPers in NV, it's the last two points that are the hardest by far. I suspect it would be possible to craft a message that could outperform our current state in all the Plains states. Maybe we can lose SD by 8 instead of 15 -- and that, of course, is worth nothing.
Same with Gallego. Yes he won and for that I'm grateful. But he would have lost to any GOPer other than Kari Lake. That's not necessarily an indictment of him or his campaign. Zona has a very long history with the GOP, and Gallego was fighting in a tough environment. I simply think it would be a mistake to think, "we should be more like Gallego" just because he won.
2. As for Osborn, I hate to say it but that is fools' gold. We've seen this play out many times before. There are no lessons to be had from what turned out to be not a close race at all. Texas should be the guide here. We got excited about Beto because there were polls in October showing him winning -- but he didn't and it wasn't all that close. We got excited about Osborn because there were polls showing him in the lead . . . but the polls were wrong and he lost by almost 7 points.
And in terms of Nebraska, Osborn had several advantages. First, not running as a Dem is helpful there because so much of politics is negative partisanship, which was initially not available when people didn't really know who he was. Second, Fischer was coasting, thinking that she had no real opposition. She's also the most unpopular Senator in the country among her constituents, for reasons I don't know and don't care to learn. Third, it happens that enthusiasm for safe incumbents can be low, because the voters don't think there's much of a race. When it turned out to be closer than people thought, the GOP voters held their noses (if they don't like Fischer -- again, I don't know why) and did their jobs.
In other words, as soon as the GOP started to pay attention that race, Fischer coasted. That's not to say anything bad about Osborn or his campaign. It's just not informative. He lost by a margin that would be considered quite big in other states. That he outperformed Harris isn't really significant. It's probably just Jamie Harrison vs Lindsey Graham. Or anybody vs Ted Cruz. Or that weird election where a Dem actually won AL because the GOP ran a child molester and apparently some GOP folks still cared about that.
3. This isn't unique to Dems. Remember how Larry Hogan was going to make MD a nail biter? He lost by 12 points. He made it a little closer than it had been in previous years -- the Dem got only 55% of the vote instead of the usual 60 -- but I don't think Republicans are going to looking to Larry Hogan for tips on how to win in blue areas.
The problem that goes both ways is that the GOP are no more able to reverse their MD fortunes in one cycle than Dems can in NE. It will take a sustained effort. But how? In what direction? Osborn's candidacy told us nothing useful. It's possible that his campaign does point a good way forward, but we don't really know. Maybe there's a world in which the GOP can take a Larry Hogan strategy to the Senate by, say, 2032 -- but again, how?
The other problem is that all politics has become identity politics, and it's mostly nationalized as well. So what is most important by far -- by really far -- is the national message. And Dan Osborn's ability to lose by less in NE or Larry Hogan losing by less in MD isn't going to tell us what works. It's pretty easy to go from 40% to 45%. As Dems in NC know all too well, as do GOPers in NV, it's the last two points that are the hardest by far. I suspect it would be possible to craft a message that could outperform our current state in all the Plains states. Maybe we can lose SD by 8 instead of 15 -- and that, of course, is worth nothing.
WaynetheDrain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,193
As left-wing as they get. Socialist.