Originally Posted by Coskin84

Hmm, Trump and Sanders would be pretty interesting. I was picturing ________ = _________ from the 1860 election, but maybe we're not that far yet.

Definitely not that far.

I highly doubt there's 4 substantial candidates for president in the 2016 election... though maybe if enough are for Huckabee, Paul, and then the two significant ones. I think it'd be fairly impossible to have some states not include a candidate on their ballots. I could kind of see Sanders = Lincoln and Clinton = Buchanan, though I know Lincoln and Buchanan are two different elections.

Yes, and people here are too quick to label Hillary as an establishment figure. She would challenge the Establishment in many ways.

I'll subscribe to the "woo-woo" a little bit as I relate my interpersonal relationships to astrology, at least my observations of how people typically represent their signs now-a-days in relation to me; very shallow.

Myself, I developed my scoring system on a very empirical basis. That could be wrong too, but it seems like overall it's very consistent. Those with high scores are almost always the ones elected president of the USA.

It's not the only factor to consider though. Sanders has the best score of anyone running. But Ron Paul and Gary Johnson had very high scores too. They were too far out of the 2-party current mainstream to capitalize on them. So that is the problem for Sanders too. And Trump may be seen as unqualified. But we'll see; this year the people may be willing to overthrow what the mainstream has been.

In any case, the candidates at this point make George W. Bush look like the greatest thing since sliced bread and Barack Obama look like The Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

In any case, the candidates at this point make George W. Bush look like the greatest thing since sliced bread and Barack Obama look like The Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Well, certainly the Republicans, I would agree.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've less certainty. I'd like to think the Republicans aren't that messed up, though it seems that they are. I'd like to think the Democrats will lean left for Sanders rather than going status quo for Hillary. We'll see. It's awfully early.

I agree with this in full. We are not in the throes of a national sea-change, though there may be a big enough shift to impact governing. Sadly, I can't see Bernie running; he's a 21st century Eugene McCarthy. I think Hillary has painted herself into an inescapable corner (Bill she's not). So the nomination on the Dem side is probably open to anyone with the ability to capitalize on the Sanders phenomenon ... except Sanders himself.

On the GOP side, the field needs thinning. Who emerges is not-Trump and probably not-Fiorina. I'm almost as certain about not-Jeb! too. Rubio is the most likely with Kasich in second. Let's see if any in the second string make a move. George Pataki is a maybe.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, I can't see Bernie running; he's a 21st century Eugene McCarthy.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. He is running. You know that, right? Maybe you mean you can't see him winning. But I've been telling you for some time now that there's a lot of activism on the left, especially from Millennials, that you're not conscious of, because you're focused on the mechanisms of activism that existed when you and I were young. Things are different now. Lack of protests in the street means very little today. (Presence of them means much more than it did in our youth. It means the level of activism is really, really extreme.) McCarthy was the candidate of choice for left-wing Boomers, but a) Boomers were much more divided politically than Millennials are; and b) when it comes to politics, Prophets suck and Heroes rock.

I can see him winning. I can also see him losing, but only to Clinton, not to a Republican.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. He is running. You know that, right? Maybe you mean you can't see him winning. But I've been telling you for some time now that there's a lot of activism on the left, especially from Millennials, that you're not conscious of, because you're focused on the mechanisms of activism that existed when you and I were young.

I mean Sanders will never make it to the general election, though he may do well in the early primaries. McCarthy certainly did. Unfortunately, there is no charismatic and younger left-leaning candidate to tap this time. It appears that Martin O'Malley is not going to be the one, and the other candidates are simply too old. I don't see a Saint Ronnie of the Left.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Things are different now. Lack of protests in the street means very little today. (Presence of them means much more than it did in our youth. It means the level of activism is really, really extreme.) McCarthy was the candidate of choice for left-wing Boomers, but a) Boomers were much more divided politically than Millennials are; and b) when it comes to politics, Prophets suck and Heroes rock.

I can see him winning. I can also see him losing, but only to Clinton, not to a Republican.

McCarthy wasn't the polarizing figure you assume he was. That polarization came later, when the Vietnam War was effectively ended. Prior to that, the country was divided on class lines, with the less educated and less wealthy being the only ones willing to go to war, but the though leaders were anti-war and McCarthy was the first anti-war politician to join the fray. This time, the issues are more diverse, with most of the Millies focused on cultural issues. Until they swing to the economic issues, they won't be a force for change. The culture war is over, or trivial at most. There isn't much if anything left to fight about ... at least not now.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I mean Sanders will never make it to the general election, though he may do well in the early primaries.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't have predicted he'd do as well as he has so far. In fact, I predicted he wouldn't run at all, and I was wrong.

Question for you. About this time in 2007, how did you rate Hillary Clinton's chances to win the nomination?

My point here is that your comparison of Sanders with McCarthy isn't accurate. More on that below.

McCarthy wasn't the polarizing figure you assume he was.

First of all, I was there, just like you, so none of this is assumption. Second, that's not what I was saying. There was a brief groundswell of support for McCarthy, mostly coming from left-leaning Boomers. If Boomers had, as a generation, leaned left as strongly as Millennials do today, he'd have done much better. No, he wasn't a polarizing figure, but we were polarized nonetheless (and still are). It's kind of a generational characteristic with us.

Actually, Hubert Humphrey was the polarizing figure. Those who supported McCarthy were in reality opposed to the Johnson administration.

That polarization came later, when the Vietnam War was effectively ended.

Okay, now I'm thinking you're the one who wasn't there. 1968-1969 was the peak of antiwar activism. Remember the Democratic convention in 1968? Recall what went down at that event? Opposition to the war wasn't a majority yet, and that came later. But there was a lot of it, and Boomers especially were sharply divided. Those of us opposed to the war were louder, but those for it may have been more numerous. Certainly there were more pro-war Boomers than is commonly recognized, whether they were a majority of the generation or not; if not, it wasn't by much.

That's not the case with Millennials and today's politics.

There isn't much if anything left to fight about ... at least not now.

Ho-kay. Well, I think I'm going to let our resident Millies point out how wrong you are about that. I'll just observe that you are indeed wrong.

Twitter will help everyone figure out how Millennial activism works now.

And Bernie has a large and growing support base. What hurts him is name (brand) recognition so the best thing to do is spread his name...maybe show how he and the Pope agree on some things?

And I know Trump isn't in the same party as Obama, but I think he's the McCarthy here, working off people's anger towards both Bush and Obama. The only issue is all he has in his court is anger and not real policy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Maybe not, but I wouldn't have predicted he'd do as well as he has so far. In fact, I predicted he wouldn't run at all, and I was wrong.

Question for you. About this time in 2007, how did you rate Hillary Clinton's chances to win the nomination?

My point here is that your comparison of Sanders with McCarthy isn't accurate. More on that below.

I had to look back at some old threads, but I was already seeing Hillary as less than likely. Now I will grant that I'm predisposed to not want her in the race today, and I was just as negative then. I find her exceedingly smarmy; I don't trust her even a little.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

First of all, I was there, just like you, so none of this is assumption. Second, that's not what I was saying. There was a brief groundswell of support for McCarthy, mostly coming from left-leaning Boomers. If Boomers had, as a generation, leaned left as strongly as Millennials do today, he'd have done much better. No, he wasn't a polarizing figure, but we were polarized nonetheless (and still are). It's kind of a generational characteristic with us.

Well, in 1968 I was 21 and you were 12, so the comparison is bit strained. I was also in the service at the time, so my POV was decidedly different.

I also doubt that the Millies are as left-leaning as you credit them for being. Yes, they have extremely liberal social views. Their views on economics and foreign policy is pretty diverse. I've seen plenty of 20-something TPers.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Actually, Hubert Humphrey was the polarizing figure. Those who supported McCarthy were in reality opposed to the Johnson administration.

Here we agree in full. Humphrey should have been his own man, but he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Okay, now I'm thinking you're the one who wasn't there. 1968-1969 was the peak of antiwar activism. Remember the Democratic convention in 1968? Recall what went down at that event? Opposition to the war wasn't a majority yet, and that came later. But there was a lot of it, and Boomers especially were sharply divided. Those of us opposed to the war were louder, but those for it may have been more numerous. Certainly there were more pro-war Boomers than is commonly recognized, whether they were a majority of the generation or not; if not, it wasn't by much.

That's not the case with Millennials and today's politics.

In 1968, I was in Japan, so most of my insight is second hand. That said, the emerging Silent Majority tended to be a few years older to much, much older than me. Draft-age Boomers were pretty consistently anti-war ... even among those in the service. Once they were out, that tended to change.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Ho-kay. Well, I think I'm going to let our resident Millies point out how wrong you are about that. I'll just observe that you are indeed wrong.

If they feel they still need to fight the culture war - first and foremost, we're screwed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I also doubt that the Millies are as left-leaning as you credit them for being. Yes, they have extremely liberal social views. Their views on economics and foreign policy is pretty diverse. I've seen plenty of 20-something TPers.

Well, then, how about some poll data?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/...-in-adulthood/

Don't trust your own acquaintances to provide reliably representative data, especially when you live in Falwell-land.

If they feel they still need to fight the culture war - first and foremost, we're screwed.

They don't. Read the article from the link I posted, please. Take a look at economic data for young people as well, and then try saying they have nothing to fight about.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, then, how about some poll data?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/...-in-adulthood/

Don't trust your own acquaintances to provide reliably representative data, especially when you live in Falwell-land.

The data in this poll supports my view a lot more than yours. Millies are disaffected and not interested in cooperative action, because they lack trust. Yes, they loved Obama. So what? They track racial identity, even more than Boomers. They also have marginal views on issues, but are optimistic based on nothing I can see. I guess they expect their parents to deliver. They aren't interested in doing it themselves.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

They don't. Read the article from the link I posted, please. Take a look at economic data for young people as well, and then try saying they have nothing to fight about.

They have every reason to be angry and should be out in the street screaming ... but they aren't. Until that changes, nothing will happen.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The data in this poll supports my view a lot more than yours.

Somehow I knew you were going to cherry-pick something to support your gloom-and-doom pessimism.

Millennials self-identify as liberal more than any older generation. In their voting, they lean Democratic more than any older generation (although they also self-label as belonging to either party less). You were asserting originally, not that Millies eschew collective action (which is also untrue), but that they don't lean left as much I was saying. You are mistaken. They do. Much more than we did at that age (as a generation; I don't mean myself personally).

Again, you are looking for collective action that would have existed when we were their age. You cannot see how much the Internet is a game-changer, and even more so a vehicle-of-protest changer. When you say that nothing will happen until Millies are "out in the street screaming" -- where YOU can see them, looking as you do only at things you are habitually ready to see -- you are simply, demonstrably, flat wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Somehow I knew you were going to cherry-pick something to support your gloom-and-doom pessimism.

Millennials self-identify as liberal more than any older generation. In their voting, they lean Democratic more than any older generation (although they also self-label as belonging to either party less). You were asserting originally, not that Millies eschew collective action (which is also untrue), but that they don't lean left as much I was saying. You are mistaken. They do. Much more than we did at that age (as a generation; I don't mean myself personally).

Just for grins, go back to Pew and compare the 1972 and 2008 elections. The delta is +16 in both cases. Now ask yourself, what motivated the delta in the two cases. Judging by 2004, it was Obama in 2008. What about 1972? I doubt is was a McGovern personality cult. So which group has a corner on liberalism?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Again, you are looking for collective action that would have existed when we were their age. You cannot see how much the Internet is a game-changer, and even more so a vehicle-of-protest changer. When you say that nothing will happen until Millies are "out in the street screaming" -- where YOU can see them, looking as you do only at things you are habitually ready to see -- you are simply, demonstrably, flat wrong.

Millennials self-identify as liberals, but what does that mean? If you overlay their self-identities with actual positions on issues, they aren't all that liberal ... except in the social arena. The two biggest elephants in a room full of elephants: they don't trust and they don't collaborate. I don't see them as 'doers' at this point, and they need to be that in spades. Either something will trigger that into being or it won't. I don't see any evidence that they'll do it by themselves.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Millennials self-identify as liberals, but what does that mean? If you overlay their self-identities with actual positions on issues, they aren't all that liberal

Millennials have a higher opinion of socialism than their elders: https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/0...ike-socialism/

Millennials have a more progressive view of health care than their elders: http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...thcare-system/

Millennials are more likely to favor alternative energy and action on climate change than older people: http://energyblog.nationalgeographic...mate-concerns/

On money in politics, taxing the rich, trade agreements, reducing or eliminating college tuition and student loan reform (that last pretty unsurprising given the age range), Millennials show up in voting and polls alike as being substantially to the left of their elders.

So no, it's not just social issues. It's across the board, with a few exceptions such as gun control.

I know you don't see Millennials as "doers," but that's because you're tied into an outdated view of what "doing" entails. You spoke of shouting in the streets. What exactly does that accomplish? It sends a message. It communicates. Otherwise, it does nothing. Organizing a petition with thousands of names on it and emailing it to every member of Congress and the President also sends a message. It also communicates. Arguably, it communicates more effectively, even if you won't see it reported on the main stream media.

When someone offers Millennials a genuinely progressive vision, they come out and vote for it. If that person or party then fails to deliver the goods, they respond accordingly. Which brings us back to the 2016 election. Without the Millennial vote, Obama would have lost in both 2008 and 2012. Sanders is better positioned to gain that support than Clinton. Here are some articles reflecting that, although none include polling data.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...s-young-voters

http://theodysseyonline.com/central-...ennials/127905

In short, this is a genuine Civic generation very much in the GI mold, allowing for the differences in times, technology, and issues. And they are definitely doing things, even if what they're doing isn't happening anywhere you happen to pay attention.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Somehow I knew you were going to cherry-pick something to support your gloom-and-doom pessimism.

Millennials self-identify as liberal more than any older generation. In their voting, they lean Democratic more than any older generation (although they also self-label as belonging to either party less). You were asserting originally, not that Millies eschew collective action (which is also untrue), but that they don't lean left as much I was saying. You are mistaken. They do. Much more than we did at that age (as a generation; I don't mean myself personally).

Again, you are looking for collective action that would have existed when we were their age. You cannot see how much the Internet is a game-changer, and even more so a vehicle-of-protest changer. When you say that nothing will happen until Millies are "out in the street screaming" -- where YOU can see them, looking as you do only at things you are habitually ready to see -- you are simply, demonstrably, flat wrong.

The street is now a virtual street and the mainstream media will soon be what's streaming the most / trending the most on the web not the airwaves / print / print representations of legacy media.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They have every reason to be angry and should be out in the street screaming ... but they aren't. Until that changes, nothing will happen.

The way the Mainstream Media treated the protests against the Iraq invasion taught us Millies that the media has the propaganda power to neuter the influence of protests and make them useless. I clearly remember the media outright lying about the number of protesters saying there only 1/10 of their actual number.

Back in your day the media played a major role in inciting opposition to the Vietnam War through their news coverage, nowadays the media are obsequious flatterers of the political establishment.

Whether its by Internet or by street protest, the only way either can facilitate a change is through the ballot box.

Neither alone or even together is Internet chat rooms or street protests sufficient for a revolution. Scratch at the surface of those who believe otherwise and one tends to find laziness, i.e., you won't find them at GOTV planning meetings.

I personally think it is too late in the saeculem for a Silent like Sanders or Biden to be president and they need to just fade from the scene now. I wish a younger leftist candidate would emerge (preferably even more left than Sanders, who still supports military-industrial complex), but I don't see such a candidate on the horizon unfortunately.

Yeah, I'd prefer it if Elizabeth Warren were running instead of Bernie Sanders, but so it goes.

Originally Posted by Odin

The way the Mainstream Media treated the protests against the Iraq invasion taught us Millies that the media has the propaganda power to neuter the influence of protests and make them useless. I clearly remember the media outright lying about the number of protesters saying there only 1/10 of their actual number.

Back in your day the media played a major role in inciting opposition to the Vietnam War through their news coverage, nowadays the media are obsequious flatterers of the political establishment.

Without disagreeing, where was the OWS passion? The OWS protestors were just too compliant to be taken seriously (i.e. as potentially dangerous).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, I'd prefer it if Elizabeth Warren were running instead of Bernie Sanders, but so it goes.

I also like EW, but the Millennials really want a 40-something with wings. There aren't any I've seen to date. If there are, they aren't center stage. The youngest candidates are all in the GOP - supplicants from the Saint Ronald Era.

So we have a party with all the pretty candidates and a totally toxic platform, and a geriatric party that is vastly more progressive. Atypical to say the least.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Without disagreeing, where was the OWS passion? The OWS protestors were just too compliant to be taken seriously (i.e. as potentially dangerous).

OWS failed because it was too ideologically opposed to the charismatic leadership and clear lines of authority to make a 4T movement work.

Presidency, 2016:

Shifting emphasis from what has been a long-shot bid for the Presidency to an effort to get re-elected to his current Senate seat indicates a practical abandonment of a bid for the Presidency. I thus no longer consider Rand Paul a viable candidate for President.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...enate-campaign

If I had not told you already, Scott Walker has terminated his campaign to be the regent for the Koch family.

Candidates with experience in public office, and only from extant polls --


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee




Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Red is for Democrats; blue is for Republicans (the very old color scheme).

I don't have match-ups involving Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders yet.

Now, for those with no experience in public office (Carson, Fiorina, and Trump). It is all extant polling:


Hillary Clinton vs. Ben Carson



Hillary Clinton vs. Carly Fiorina




Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Again, blue is for the Republican and red is for the Democrat, as in the source that I use for those maps. I really have little for Carson or Fiorina -- much less than I had for Paul or Walker.

One state suggests that Trump could be in unusual trouble for a Republican candidate for President: Utah. He has a 56-44 lead over Hillary Clinton there, but that is very weak in contrast to what Jeb Bush shows there. Donald Trump has made his money in a business that devout Mormons despise -- gambling. Gambling casinos are dens of iniquity for Mormons due not only to gambling itself (tellingly, Utah is one of two states with no licit gambling; the other is Hawaii) but also smoking and drinking.

Should the LDS hierarchy turn on a Republican nominee for President, then the Democrat surely wins the six electoral votes of Utah even though Utah has typically been an automatic win for just about any Republican nominee. The last two Republican losses of the electoral votes of Utah were Barry Goldwater in 1964 (weird Presidential election) and Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 (after which Dwight Eisenhower successfully courted the Mormon vote and won it seemingly indefinitely).

Donald Trump could cause the LDS hierarchy to turn on him. Offend the sensibilities of the LDS hierarchy -- and lose Utah. Trump is the only Republican who could lose Utah. I could imagine the LDS hierarchy making an example of him in 2016. No other Republican nominee offers such an opening for Democrats in Utah.