Bernie Sanders for 2020.

[OrcsRLame]

Who the hell makes up those generation classifications? The crypt keepers of <1927 calling themselves the greatest? HAHA!

"The Greatest Generation" is a term made popular by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation.

Anywho, I'd vote for Sanders if he ran in 2020.

[Theodarzna]

The campaign slogan in the primary is already decided.

[May90]

Whoever runs against Trump in 2020, they should assume the slogan, "Make America great again".

[Bodakane]

The campaign slogan in the primary is already decided.

There are times I love the internet....this has been one of those times.

[alexw]

Your graph is not very helpful. As it starts in 1994, we cannot see any real voting trend except in one series of Generation X'ers. Every other generation is either older already, or too young. If you get data from starting back in the 1950's and 1960's, let's talk. I highly doubt that the boomers were huge Republican supporters in the 60's, but neither of us has data to that end. Secondly, I distinctly remember us having this discussion right before the election, specifically in the Senate races where I said that the Republicans would hold the Senate. Results at least remain on my side for now.

Here is a good article (from The Nation of all places) which may give you pause. https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...e-antecedents/



Please, I beg you, keep this up. Continue insulting a good quarter of the electorate, especially when the next election is a midterm with several Democrat senators up in red states.

Again, from exit poll data (which if anything we now know is skewed Democrat):


A small minority wanted the Democrats to move left. 50% wanted a rightward shift in policy.

We don't have data going back to the 1950s and 1960's but we do for the mid-70's onwards and that data supports everything I say.

For example here is the data for the first Reagan election in 1980 -
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-1980/

What the data shows is that the younger voters were evenly split. Half of the 18-21 year old bracket voted D and half R. Now remember that this was the time period of skyrocketing inflation due to the middle east oil embargo. There were gasoline shortages, etc. By the time of the next election in 1984 the embargo had ended and so had the inflation. Reagan's approval ratings were sky high and he won in a landslide.

Now guess how those same 18-21 year olds (now aged 22-25) voted in 1984? Yes that's right, republican by large margins, by something like 6 : 4 -
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-1984/

As a generation they have been voting republican ever since. The socio-economic conditions of the time, the things that shaped them, "fixed" them to be republican voters.

The same is happening now for younger voters. The high income inequality, the harm that they will suffer from man made global warming, their beliefs on how we should treat people different to ourselves, has "fixed" them as left wing democratic voters. Indeed they voted democrat by large margins for three elections now. As a generation republicans have utterly lost them and they now have virtually no chance to win them back, especially with all the things that the republicans are planning to do, such as ending all action against man made global warming, and installing socially conservative supreme court judges.

All we need to do is just wait. Republicans have set themselves on a path to total destruction of their party. Its inevitable but giddy as they are from this win they are going to ignore what the data is telling them. In fact if anything I expect them to further alienate the young and speed up this whole process.

Oh and the exit poll data you posted is irrelevant as it is a general survey of the population. It says nothing about younger voters specifically. And if you look at those same exit polls for how the younger generations actually voted, you'd see its overwhelmingly for Clinton. Your party, however much you want to deny it, has dug its grave over the last 16 years and is sleepwalking towards it.

[Sargerasraider]

Snip

Two things:

1) Using the 1984 election as evidence is using an outlier. Mondale lost 49 states in a landslide. I would not base things on that data point.

2) Please read that article I cited before. People have been claiming what you are for 50 years. Somehow, it hasn't happened yet.

Regardless, why in the world would the Republicans change a strategy which is undeniably working? They're never going to out-Democrat the Democrats, so moving leftward would only lose support.

[alexw]

1) Using the 1984 election as evidence is using an outlier. Mondale lost 49 states in a landslide. I would not base things on that data point.

2) Please read that article I cited before. People have been claiming what you are for 50 years. Somehow, it hasn't happened yet.

You are missing the point. It was the period 1980-84 that turned those young people into republican true believers. So of course they would be part and parcel of the republican wave.

Moreover you can do exactly the same sort of analysis for the generation after them that came of age during Clinton. And the result is exactly the same.

The Clinton years were seen as a period of economic boom. They were good times. The young that came of age then voted D vs R 46 to 32. In his re-election bid in 1996 they voted even more strongly D relative to R, 55 to 35. How do they vote now? How did they vote in 2016? Democratic of course.

Now however we have a republican party that refuses to change, that is completely out of touch with young people both on economic and social issues, and its turned those young people into a generation that will vote consistently D for the rest of their lives. Just as prior generations voting preferences were fixed in a similar fashion.

And yes its different this time. For one reason. In the past when this happened the party that was on the losing side of such societal changes updated their platforms and philosophies to capture the next generation of voters after the one they lost. So after the great depression and the war the greatest generation were consistent D voters. But then the republicans changed from hard right on economics to moderate right. The new group were called Rockefeller republicans. That enabled them to be competitive again and capture the votes of the generation that came after the greatest.

The same happened again in the 1990's with the Clinton third way when he updated the democratic parties philosophies and platform. Now such a change is due on the republican side if they are to remain competitive in the future. But they refuse to change. Instead they stick to their old philosophies and platform that so alienates millennials, and now given Trump's rhetoric will without a doubt alienate gen z given the fact that they are 50% non-white.

No the truth is on the wall. But you like all the other republican base voters (the officials know better its why they wrote the 2012 autopsy) refuse to accept the truth, and its this reality denial which is so prevalent in you republicans on so many things, that will lead your party to its destruction.

[Duravian]

My god dont even mention 2020 give it a break..

[Sargerasraider]

You are missing the point. It was the period 1980-84 that turned those young people into republican true believers. So of course they would be part and parcel of the republican wave.

Moreover you can do exactly the same sort of analysis for the generation after them that came of age during Clinton. And the result is exactly the same.

The Clinton years were seen as a period of economic boom. They were good times. The young that came of age then voted D vs R 46 to 32. In his re-election bid in 1996 they voted even more strongly D relative to R, 55 to 35. How do they vote now? How did they vote in 2016? Democratic of course.

Now however we have a republican party that refuses to change, that is completely out of touch with young people both on economic and social issues, and its turned those young people into a generation that will vote consistently D for the rest of their lives. Just as prior generations voting preferences were fixed in a similar fashion.

And yes its different this time. For one reason. In the past when this happened the party that was on the losing side of such societal changes updated their platforms and philosophies to capture the next generation of voters after the one they lost. So after the great depression and the war the greatest generation were consistent D voters. But then the republicans changed from hard right on economics to moderate right. The new group were called Rockefeller republicans. That enabled them to be competitive again and capture the votes of the generation that came after the greatest.

The same happened again in the 1990's with the Clinton third way when he updated the democratic parties philosophies and platform. Now such a change is due on the republican side if they are to remain competitive in the future. But they refuse to change. Instead they stick to their old philosophies and platform that so alienates millennials, and now given Trump's rhetoric will without a doubt alienate gen z given the fact that they are 50% non-white.

No the truth is on the wall. But you like all the other republican base voters (the officials know better its why they wrote the 2012 autopsy) refuse to accept the truth, and its this reality denial which is so prevalent in you republicans on so many things, that will lead your party to its destruction.

Elections of 1968 and 1972 - Please note the youth differential there compared to the rest of the population

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9457/elec...-19681972.aspx

1980

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-1980/

Consistently, the youth vote leans further to the left than the rest of the population.

Here is the 2012 election (I don't have updated numbers for 2016)
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-2012/

You can see that, yes, Obama won people between the ages of 30-44, but not at the previous margins that they went for the Democrats in the 90's. Again, you can see that the younger people are, the more strongly they lean left. This goes along with a gradual rightward shift as people age.

-Regardless-

The Republicans control the entire federal government. Are you really suggesting that they should take you seriously at the moment where their current strategy has led them to their best position in about 100 years?

I find it truly amusing how you and others on your side were decrying obstructionism, etc. prior to the election and how this would doom the Republicans.

Somehow, you've turned Mitch McConnell into a political genius. Who's laughing now?

[alexw]

Elections of 1968 and 1972 - Please note the youth differential there compared to the rest of the population

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9457/elec...-19681972.aspx

1980

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-1980/

Consistently, the youth vote leans further to the left than the rest of the population.

Here is the 2012 election (I don't have updated numbers for 2016)
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-2012/

You can see that, yes, Obama won people between the ages of 30-44, but not at the previous margins that they went for the Democrats in the 90's. Again, you can see that the younger people are, the more strongly they lean left. This goes along with a gradual rightward shift as people age.

-Regardless-

The Republicans control the entire federal government. Are you really suggesting that they should take you seriously at the moment where their current strategy has led them to their best position in about 100 years?

I find it truly amusing how you and others on your side were decrying obstructionism, etc. prior to the election and how this would doom the Republicans.

Somehow, you've turned Mitch McConnell into a political genius. Who's laughing now?

Lol. No. People do not become more right-wing as they age. If that were true then women would never have had the vote! Society as a whole becomes more left wing over time. Its been a general trend for a long time now. Slavery abolition was a gosh darn left-wing idea (the republican party of the time were the left wing of the two). It was made illegal. Making child labour illegal. Ditto. Giving women the vote. Ditto. Putting in a minimum wage. Ditto. Creating social-security. Ditto. In all cases these were at the time idea's of the then left. Now its about gay marriage and preventing man made climate change.

But irrespective of that lets look at your data. First lets take your 1972 election data. At that point the under 30's have had 4 years of Nixon so they know him. They have decided what they think of him. They have had their political alignments "fixed" according to the hypothesis I am passing on here (I already did this for the 1984 data so I have to wonder why you chose 1980 which is pre-"fix"). Plus no third party exists to complicate the analysis. D vs R is 48 to 52. So they are slightly more aligned with republicans.

Now lets fast forward to recent times and see who these people voted for. In 2012 they would be 40 years older so in the 58-70 age bracket. Unfortunately there is no exact gallup data age bracket like that but we have some that are fairly close. Here's the data -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/el...te-groups.aspx
Age 50-64 D vs R 50 : 50
Age 64+ D vs R 46 : 54

So half are in the first group and half in the latter. Now I know this is a terrible way to do this sort of thing but without better data its about the only way, so lets average the vote totals and use them as a proxy for the 58-70 bracket. That gives us -

Age 58-72 D vs R 48 : 52

Let me remind you again the data for these individuals in 1972 -
D vs R 48 : 52

Have I convinced you now?


As for taking me seriously its not about me. Their own analysis has shown them that what I am saying is true. They wrote an analysis on it in 2012. There are republican people telling them exactly the same thing this year. Here for example is Frank Luntz, a republican party hack and pollster on the issue -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...-gop/81534530/

Frank Luntz: Young voters spell doom for GOP

If you want to understand today’s young Americans, consider this: 58% of them think “socialism” is the most compassionate political system, compared with just 33% who pick “capitalism.” Heck, 9% even voted for “communism.”

That’s right: Two-thirds in a poll I did last month say socialism or communism is more compassionate than capitalism.

While Republicans fight a war over how high to build a mythical wall on our Southern border, they ignore the war for the hearts and minds of America’s largest generation in history — even bigger than the Baby Boomers.

The Republican Party doesn’t have a problem with younger voters. Younger voters have a problem with the Republican Party, and it is rapidly becoming a long-term electoral crisis.

In our recent national survey of 1,000 first- and second-time voters ages 18 to 26, Republicans weren’t just off on the wrong track. They were barely on the radar with this Snapchat generation, as it is sometimes called.

Let’s start with the simplest question we asked: “Out of today's major political figures, who do you like and respect the most?”

Nearly one in three (31%) chose Bernie Sanders, followed by 18% for Barack Obama and 11% for Hillary Clinton. The highest ranking Republican was … Donald Trump, at a mere 9%. In fact, Sanders — who won more than 80% of young Democrats in Tuesday’s Michigan primary — scored higher than all the Republicans combined. This isn’t just a slant toward the Democrats; it’s a chasm of disconnection that renders every prominent national Republican irrelevant with the voting bloc that could control campaigns for the next 30 years.

The problem, or “crisis” if you're an active Republican, is in their political identification. Fully 44% identify themselves as Democrats, higher in my polling than any age cohort in America. By comparison, about 15% call themselves Republican, lower than any age cohort. The remaining 42% say they’re independent, but on issue after issue they lean toward the Democrats. It’s not that young people love the Democratic Party — they don’t. But they reject the Republican Party and the corporate interests it appears to represent. Democrats can live with this dynamic. Republicans might die by it.

Internally republican leaders KNOW what I say is true. Short term wins change none of this. The next generation of voters will never vote for you. You had a chance this year to change and win at least some of them, but you blew it because you republican base voters refuse to accept reality. You have been doing it for pages and pages of debate with me now. I point out reality and you deny it because its not what you want to hear. Its why I keep saying your party is doomed because it is, because of its base voters refusal to listen to any voices outside of their own echo-chamber and change. Now I am fully expecting more denial of the truth, and I bet its what I will get.

[Sargerasraider]

(Snip) Its why I keep saying your party is doomed because it is, because of its base voters refusal to listen to any voices outside of their own echo-chamber and change. Now I am fully expecting more denial of the truth, and I bet its what I will get.

Great. We'll deal with it when we have to. Current strategy is obviously working for now.

What do you want the Republicans to do? Promise more free stuff? They're not going to be more liberal than Bernie, so why bother. Why try to be Democrat-light, when you can have the real thing?

[alexw]

Great. We'll deal with it when we have to. Current strategy is obviously working for now.

What do you want the Republicans to do? Promise more free stuff? They're not going to be more liberal than Bernie, so why bother. Why try to be Democrat-light, when you can have the real thing?

Except its the current strategy that dooms your party in the future. You cannot worry about it later and survive. If you wait a decade and start to change it will be too late. It may even be too late already. Those young voters will be too far locked into the democratic party that you will never ever reach them no matter what you say or do. You've seen how African Americans don't care a word for what republican's say, right? How anything the republican party says is irrelevant to them? Now imagine that same level of dislike and disgust existing in the majority of anyone under 35. That's the sort of disconnect we are talking about. Hell there is lots of them on the street right now holding up signs saying "not my president". That should give you a clue to the level of disgust they have for what republicans currently stand for. That's a party that is dooming itself with these voters.

They don't have to be more liberal. Did the democratic party become more republican than the republican party when Clinton brought in his third-way politics in the 1990's? They just have to change enough to have some relevance. They don't need to win all young people but enough that they have a chance at winning elections in the future, something which doesn't exist at the moment.

So drop the crap about appointing SCOTUS judges that will overturn gay marriage and take out the anti-gay wording from the party platform. Say that man made climate is real and existing (which it is) and propose republican free market based solutions as a means to solve it. George Bush did exactly this with respect to the acid rain issue in the 1990's. Have the republican party do something similar again. Do something about the student debt issue. You don't need to make college free, but restore the level of university funding in real dollar terms to what it was 20 years ago. If it was OK to spend x billion then on universities it should be OK to spend exactly the same x now. The rest can be fixed by finding a way to force the costs down, so there is no need to use excessive amounts of taxpayer money. We all know there is way too much being spent on buildings, grounds, and pay for senior university staff. All of this can fit in with a moderate but not far right republican brand. Do it and you will have a heck of a lot of millennial support, you would still be a major political player as a party in 20 years. Don't, and well you already know what will happen. I've already shown you.

[Sargerasraider]

Except its the current strategy that dooms your party in the future. You cannot worry about it later and survive. If you wait a decade and start to change it will be too late. It may even be too late already. Those young voters will be too far locked into the democratic party that you will never ever reach them no matter what you say or do. You've seen how African Americans don't care a word for what republican's say, right? How anything the republican party says is irrelevant to them? Now imagine that same level of dislike and disgust existing in the majority of anyone under 35. That's the sort of disconnect we are talking about. Hell there is lots of them on the street right now holding up signs saying "not my president". That should give you a clue to the level of disgust they have for what republicans currently stand for. That's a party that is dooming itself with these voters.

They don't have to be more liberal. Did the democratic party become more republican than the republican party when Clinton brought in his third-way politics in the 1990's? They just have to change enough to have some relevance. They don't need to win all young people but enough that they have a chance at winning elections in the future, something which doesn't exist at the moment.

So drop the crap about appointing SCOTUS judges that will overturn gay marriage and take out the anti-gay wording from the party platform. Say that man made climate is real and existing (which it is) and propose republican free market based solutions as a means to solve it. George Bush did exactly this with respect to the acid rain issue in the 1990's. Have the republican party do something similar again. Do something about the student debt issue. You don't need to make college free, but restore the level of university funding in real dollar terms to what it was 20 years ago. If it was OK to spend x billion then on universities it should be OK to spend exactly the same x now. The rest can be fixed by finding a way to force the costs down, so there is no need to use excessive amounts of taxpayer money. We all know there is way too much being spent on buildings, grounds, and pay for senior university staff. All of this can fit in with a moderate but not far right republican brand. Do it and you will have a heck of a lot of millennial support, you would still be a major political player as a party in 20 years. Don't, and well you already know what will happen. I've already shown you.

Look, we're not going to agree here.

You (who are not a Republican party supporter), are suggesting huge changes in political position and strategy at a time where current strategy has had significant electoral payoff. You do this suggesting that there may be some theoretical benefit in the future. Thank goodness they didn't listen to your helpful suggestions with the Garland nomination. I know you had their best interests at heart there too.

On the other hand, I have seen people suggesting my entire voting life that the Republicans will never win another election due to demographics. Their views are unpopular, out of touch, need to be moderated, too obstructionist, etc. Yet, they keep winning elections.

This is a perfect example where you can post all of this data suggesting that the current strategy will fail; however, the data is meaningless as electoral results have not supported your conclusions.

[Fugus]

Look, we're not going to agree here.

You (who are not a Republican party supporter), are suggesting huge changes in political position and strategy at a time where current strategy has had significant electoral payoff. You do this suggesting that there may be some theoretical benefit in the future. Thank goodness they didn't listen to your helpful suggestions with the Garland nomination. I know you had their best interests at heart there too.

On the other hand, I have seen people suggesting my entire voting life that the Republicans will never win another election due to demographics. Their views are unpopular, out of touch, need to be moderated, too obstructionist, etc. Yet, they keep winning elections.

This is a perfect example where you can post all of this data suggesting that the current strategy will fail; however, the data is meaningless as electoral results have not supported your conclusions.

Actually, it wasn't the Republican strategy that had the electoral payoff. It was the Democrats strategy which backfired in epic fashion and took everything down with it. They basically sacrificed everything trying to put Clinton in the office and screwed up when they sacrificed their own voters as well in the attempt.

If they had listened to their voters instead of what they did, things would have been much different.

As far as the Republicans moving, they will have to do that eventually as their current voter base move past their expiration date and move on but for the time being, they have little to no point in it as the current Democratic administration seems to be chasing donors instead of voters and keeping their voter base at home in the process.

[purebalance]

Bernie is only about two years older than the Donald. So long as he's in good health I'll vote for him.

There are other options. Hopefully the DNC learns their fucking lesson, listens to their base and lets us pick a candidate who we can rally behind. If they don't, we'll have another four years of the Donald in 2020.

The voters picked Hillary. How many times are people going to keep spreading this lie? She won WITHOUT superdelegates.

[Fugus]

The voters picked Hillary. How many times are people going to keep spreading this lie? She won WITHOUT superdelegates.

The voters were screwed to prop Hillary up. you can lie to yourself, but you aren't lying to the people who actually paid attention.

The DNC broke their own neutrality to screw Sanders and make sure he lost even going as far as setting the order of the primaries in a fashion that guaranteed she got up front quick trying to rob him of momentum and that isn't even going into all the accusations of fraud during the election or all the work they did to try and make him look bad.

The voters did not vote Hillary, even with huge numbers of voters whom overwhelmingly vote for him were locked out, he still managed 46% of the vote against voters, most of which, didn't even know who he was which the DNC made sure they never did.

So, the DNC effectively cheated their own voters during the primary, then on top of that, they teased, insulted, and antagonized their voters for not want Clinton and then expected people to vote for her.

Sorry, the voters were cheated in the primary and then it cost Clinton in the general when they chose not for the person whom cheated her and lost down ballot as well due to the DNC helping her against the will of her voters.

They had a chance of winning with Sanders or losing with Clinton and you got your wish. Enjoy.

[Gandrake]

Oh look, a deplorable Trumpster

well it's not so much that i support trump, but that i do not support hillary. I would have voted for sanders.

but let's move forward and address the next part of your statement

you see, the thing about trump is that he could just openly say "man i fucking niggers" and it wouldn't matter because black people are 13% of the US population and even black people hate black people because just as we look down on uneducated racist white trash who are always in some kind of trouble and are a hassle to know, they look down on those black equivalents the the same way.

So it's not like he would have lost all black votes. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they have to be blue.

Now, I'm sure I've triggered your feeble and fragile mind at this point, but I want you to try to stay focused because being black or racial slurs aren't a part of this conversation piece. It has little to do with this statement other than illustrating my point.

Hillary on the other hand goes out and practically insults a decent chunk the biggest group of people in America... White people. Who make up around 70% of this country's population. And that ain't nothing to fuck around with. So then you got all these angry ass white people exposing you, pressing news about you on facebook and sharing with others why you shouldn't be president.

I mean yeah they did this with Trump too, but everything was just fucking redundant and not the motherlode people wanted it to be. But the skeletons in Hillary's not so private closet that managed to stay hidden because no one really talks about it for whatever reason is just a fucking treasure trove of shade. You never know when you're done digging.

People got tired of it. With Trump, what you see is what you get and there is value in that. When he is cornered, he tells the truth. Hillary is who you want her to be in front of the camera. Well, except for that whole Deplorables thing. I think she just thought being really offensive seemed to be working out for Donald so she tried it out for herself and it happened to backfire miserably. She is a conniving sack of shit, but she is not stupid. It was a surprising moment.

But when Hillary is cornered, she tells more lies. Like a cowering child. At least when Trump lies, it's about paying taxes. Hillary has lied about and wrapped herself up in oh so many more things that are so fucking disgraceful that I wouldn't even make her president of a country in my worst nightmares.

[daenerys]

The voters picked Hillary. How many times are people going to keep spreading this lie? She won WITHOUT superdelegates.

She may have gotten the votes, though she was boosted a lot behind the scenes by the DNC, like being fed Debate questions ahead of time. The DNC did everything they could behind the scenes to make sure Hillary was their candidate, and not Bernie.

[Sargerasraider]

They had a chance of winning with Sanders or losing with Clinton and you got your wish. Enjoy.

I'm a little disappointed we never got to see the "honeymooned in the USSR" ads that would have been run incessantly as soon as he got the nomination.

[Fugus]

I'm a little disappointed we never got to see the "honeymooned in the USSR" ads that would have been run incessantly as soon as he got the nomination.

Might want to read what he actually was doing there instead of just that little soundbite. Not many people take 10 other people to their honeymoon. You remind me of all those articles talking about how Clinton and her people keep wanting to blame everyone but themselves for losing.

Honestly, if his trip to there or the big red scare of socialism is all they had against him, it would be easy pickings. But keep lying to yourself.