Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I prefer to call (PC) a case of Boomers jumping the shark, sorry.

OK, but I don't even know what that means!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I sure hope so. Clinton is a crooked as a dog's hind leg. Please choose someone with some ethics.

Clinton looks like the nominee. Noone else is either running or has any name recognition or reputation. I disagree that Hillary is "crooked."

I think the trick is to somehow align the 2 largest cohort sets. [Core Millies and Jonesers]. I don't think appealing to Millies is that difficult. The problem lies in the herding cats stuff with Jonesers.

Millies don't appear to be herdable. What's the use of getting their votes in a presidential election, only to watch them cede the field to older folks in the midterms, who reverse everything they voted for? Millies appear to be useless, regardless of their numbers.

Generational appeals mean less than nothing. You can't "align two cohort sets." Nobody cares about that except the very few people on this forum.

Originally Posted by Kepi

For me personally it was the lack of a stance on net neutrality (and look at how quick it took fire them to jump on that after the fact, if they keep it up, they might get my vote back); it was the response to ISIS because I'm tired of us acting like the great Western Savior, bringing democracy to the "savages" one bomb at a time. You've also got Yellen as the Fed Chair, who is another day late and dollar short player who has more our less stayed Bernanke's plotted course perhaps minus a month or so. Our response to the NSA spy programs are unacceptable, along with our treatment of Edward Snowden. Selling armor to cops at low, low prices has created civil rights issues, and our response has been less than adequate (which is an understatement). Affordable healthcare is inadequate.

Basically, why'd I vote for these failures in the first place? My vote has value, and I'm not going to waste it on failure.

You said you "liked" Warner; I'm curious why you now call him not worth your vote. He almost lost another seat to the assholes because millies and X/Yers like you didn't vote.

I may not agree with all your concerns above, but a lot of them I do. I don't see why you think blue boomers disagree with you on all these things.

I don't know how elections work in VA; are you telling me there's no third party alternatives allowed there?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You said you "liked" Warner; I'm curious why you now call him not worth your vote. He almost lost another seat to the assholes because millies and X/Yers like you didn't vote.

I may not agree with all your concerns above, but a lot of them I do. I don't see why you think blue boomers disagree with you on all these things.

I don't know how elections work in VA; are you telling me there's no third party alternatives allowed there?

Virginia is actually very third party friendly, but most of the time third party candidates don't actually run. And frankly, most third parties suck, anyway. Lots of ideology, but no actual plans to implement.

I looked Warner as a governor mostly because he can do math, which is something that most politicians just can't. But in terms of being the a great law maker?Not nearly as good.. You still need people who can do math in congress, sure, but I don't think he was bucking a general trend in congress of not sucking at congress. He's a far better executive than he is a legislator.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Virginia is actually very third party friendly, but most of the time third party candidates don't actually run. And frankly, most third parties suck, anyway. Lots of ideology, but no actual plans to implement.

I liked Warner as a governor mostly because he can do math, which is something that most politicians just can't. But in terms of being the a great law maker? Not nearly as good.. You still need people who can do math in congress, sure, but I don't think he was bucking a general trend in congress of not sucking at congress. He's a far better executive than he is a legislator.

You have explained why you didn't vote. Apparently there was nothing of interest to vote on. Like most states, you probably don't have the intiative. Still, you are not even a Millennial, and what you did and why does not represent what Millennials did. You can't speak for them. The fact is they stayed home in droves, just because they didn't know how democracy works, or didn't want to bother with it. They may have been disillusioned too. But it was probably just something like "Obama didn't improve the economy." Which is just incredibly dumb and indicates that they didn't follow the news at all. You have no way to tell if they shared any of your views.

If your choice is mediocre vs. terrible, I can't tell you to vote for mediocre; that's your decision. Personally I think my vote is valuable, and if Warner had lost, that was the same as giving Mitch McConnell another vote for destroying the environment and perpetuating inequality and many other bad things. How good Warner was would probably have seemed largely irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Clinton looks like the nominee. Noone else is either running or has any name recognition or reputation. I disagree that Hillary is "crooked."



Millies don't appear to be herdable. What's the use of getting their votes in a presidential election, only to watch them cede the field to older folks in the midterms, who reverse everything they voted for? Millies appear to be useless, regardless of their numbers.

Generational appeals mean less than nothing. You can't "align two cohort sets." Nobody cares about that except the very few people on this forum.

Hillary in office would be as bad as a Neocon. She has no problem with starting wars. She voted yes for Iraq, has supported military action every time it has came up. Hillary is willing to go as far as nuke Iran, which would likely start a global nuclear war. Russia is allied with Iran basically. She has voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She believes national security is more important than rights. Hillary is just another establishment candidate willing to do the bidding of corporate America.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You said you "liked" Warner; I'm curious why you now call him not worth your vote. He almost lost another seat to the assholes because millies and X/Yers like you didn't vote.

I may not agree with all your concerns above, but a lot of them I do. I don't see why you think blue boomers disagree with you on all these things.

I don't know how elections work in VA; are you telling me there's no third party alternatives allowed there?

But he didn't lose that seat - even in a year with an electorate heavily skewed toward Republicans.

Which means that Hillary should have an easy time of it in Virginia in 2016 - and am I right in maintaining that for the Democrats, holding onto Kerry's states from 2004 plus Virginia and Ohio mathematically equals victory in 2016?

As for Dave89's misgivings about Hillary: Unlike Obama, she could console herself with the idea that a war against the jihadists would also be a war against misogyny and homophobia (and it would be, too), and also console herself with the fact that a "general mobilization" war would, by necessity, result in a truly massive redistribution of wealth (as it indeed did, during World War II) - and the latter will be a terrible surprise for corporate America!

And - just a joke, Dave - what are we to expect from a dude who comes from a city, which, as per H.L. Mencken's observation, combines Southern bigotry with Midwestern uptightness?

Trust me when I say that Millennials will show up to foil Hillary again.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Forgive me if I doubt information provided by American Express, but I'm going to go ahead and do just that. Really when you look at poverty measures in the US, our measures of poverty are ridiculously short. Sure they say that only one in 5 kids are living in poverty, but let's be clear they're defining that as with a household income under 30k per year for a family of 5. I suspect that any information coming from as company whose rests in keeping the world bathed in debt is going to be skewed to delusional degrees.

Here you sound like a climate denier.

Also, when you're talking about class issues there's a massive difference in possible outcomes between generations which does make this a generational issue, and outcomes are always what matters.

Yes there is a difference between generational outcomes, but not between college-educated people. Incomes in constant dollars for members of the Boomers, Gen X and Millies are all about the same (Millies slightly higher than Boomers and Boomers slightly higher than GenXers) but not significantly so. Household income for Millies is considerably higher, I suspect because many are living at home.

The cost of education is another one that's gone up in multiples proportional to income.

Yes it has, but again the impact on Millennials who obtained a four year degree in the normal amount of time has not been severe. Millies get more help from their parents than my generation did, partly because our parents generally inherited nothing from their parents (who generally were poorer than they). For example, we set up a gift to minors acct for my stepdaughter that in 2000 when she graduated HS was worth 95K that consisted mostly of 100 shares of GM stock my wife had inherited from her mother. The stock had split twice in the 90's and in 2000 was selling at 30 times earnings). I am sure we weren't the only folks who plunked a modest inheritance into a college account for their kids.

The following is from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mag...icit052711.php

These alarming numbers have led to stories in the media about how student debt may lead Millennials to delay getting married, having children, and buying houses and furniture. If that is the case, our demand-starved economy will be deprived of a much-needed jolt of purchasing that such “family formation” typically provides. So far, however, there’s not much evidence that more Millennial college grads are deferring home purchases compared to their peers a generation ago. Indeed, a recent Brookings study that looks at student loan borrowers shows that the extra earnings that come with a college degree have allowed college graduates under forty to manage their debts reasonably well.

However things are a LOT harder for working class and poor millennials, particularly nonwhites, who were cannot rely on parental help.

So what’s behind the soaring increase in student debt delinquency? Evidence suggests that the problem is students who attended college and accumulated debt but left without earning a degree. Students who haven’t graduated are more than four times as likely to default on their student loans as those who have, according to a study by the think tank Education Sector. Recent research from the economist Beth Akers shows that borrowers with less than $5,000 in student debt are the most likely to be late on payments. In fact, the more college debt a student incurs, the less likely he or she is to default. This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s not—a low loan balance is indicative of a borrower who didn’t complete school, and is therefore less likely to repay. According to Department of Education statistics, defaulters also tend to be older (the median age is thirty-eight), from low-income backgrounds, with poor financial literacy, and with no degree to show for their efforts. A disproportionate number of them attended for-profit colleges.

Again it is mostly a class issue. It is not going to help working class millennials struggling to get ahead to cut government benefits to working class seniors while giving a pass to hedge fund zillionaires from their own generation. Any money saved by cutting benefits will simply go to tax cuts for these same zillionaires.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

Hillary in office would be as bad as a Neocon. She has no problem with starting wars. She voted yes for Iraq, has supported military action every time it has came up. Hillary is willing to go as far as nuke Iran, which would likely start a global nuclear war. Russia is allied with Iran basically. She has voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She believes national security is more important than rights. Hillary is just another establishment candidate willing to do the bidding of corporate America.

So you are saying why go for the neocon emulator when you can have the real thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The fact is they stayed home in droves, just because they didn't know how democracy works.

They stayed home because that is what they normally do. Our generation also did not vote in proportion to our numbers when we were young.

Democrats are in trouble mostly because they rely on minorities and young people and affluent social liberals. Two out of three of these groups are not reliable voters, some with good reason (they have to work) or unwillingness to wait hours to vote. If I had to wait I wouldn't vote either. I've never my lifetime has to wait a significant amount of time to vote. How many poor, minority or young people can say that?

Originally Posted by Kepi

For me personally it was the lack of a stance on net neutrality (and look at how quick it took fire them to jump on that after the fact, if they keep it up, they might get my vote back); it was the response to ISIS because I'm tired of us acting like the great Western Savior, bringing democracy to the "savages" one bomb at a time. You've also got Yellen as the Fed Chair, who is another day late and dollar short player who has more our less stayed Bernanke's plotted course perhaps minus a month or so. Our response to the NSA spy programs are unacceptable, along with our treatment of Edward Snowden. Selling armor to cops at low, low prices has created civil rights issues which and or response has been less than adequate (which is an understatement). Affordable healthcare is inadequate.

Basically, why'd I vote for these failures in the first place? My vote has value, and I'm not going to waste it on failure.

If these are your core issues, then go luck. You can win on every one, and still live life on your knees.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Virginia is actually very third party friendly, but most of the time third party candidates don't actually run. And frankly, most third parties suck, anyway. Lots of ideology, but no actual plans to implement.

I looked Warner as a governor mostly because he can do math, which is something that most politicians just can't. But in terms of being the a great law maker?Not nearly as good.. You still need people who can do math in congress, sure, but I don't think he was bucking a general trend in congress of not sucking at congress. He's a far better executive than he is a legislator.

Warner doesn't do math. He does arithmetic, but that's about it. He's still fixated on balancing the budget. So were the Japanese, until they went into deflation. So are the Germans even now, but they're headed down as well. Why follow? Oh yeah, the arithmetic.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Trust me when I say that Millennials will show up to foil Hillary again.

... and replace her with whom? I don't' like her either, but you can't beat someone with no one. At the moment, the bench is getting pretty empty. Millennials should be lining up for the feeder jobs: state legislative and local electoral seats. If you don't, who will? The seats will be filled by someone.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... and replace her with whom? I don't' like her either, but you can't beat someone with no one. At the moment, the bench is getting pretty empty. Millennials should be lining up for the feeder jobs: state legislative and local electoral seats. If you don't, who will? The seats will be filled by someone.

A generation that doesn't even know how to vote, may not be a very productive group.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They stayed home because that is what they normally do. Our generation also did not vote in proportion to our numbers when we were young.

I don't know if the contrast with midterms was so great. In 1974 there was a Democratic wave. Nixon could not get much support for his scare campaign in 1970 either. Boomers gave Reagan a scare in 1982.

But yes I agree; but wait, millennials are supposed to be "civics." That means, they are supposed to understand civic responsibility. That means following what's happening, and voting based on that.

They don't. So, they have failed to live up to being civics, just as boomers are accused of not being good prophets by the likes of Kepi.

Democrats are in trouble mostly because they rely on minorities and young people and affluent social liberals. Two out of three of these groups are not reliable voters, some with good reason (they have to work) or unwillingness to wait hours to vote. If I had to wait I wouldn't vote either. I've never (in) my lifetime had to wait a significant amount of time to vote. How many poor, minority or young people can say that?

The Republicans are making people wait. Maybe they are putting out fewer polling places in ethnic neighborhoods unfriendly to Republicans. But they couldn't do that in states like CA and OR. Most people get their ballots in the mail here.

It has also been said that Republicans are in trouble because they rely on old white guys. You have to target your voters. But the Democrats have a coherent message that should appeal to all, and which everyone can understand. The people are not listening. It is the peoples' fault.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But he didn't lose that seat - even in a year with an electorate heavily skewed toward Republicans.

Your analysis is off; Warner was expected to romp to victory, not squeak by.

Which means that Hillary should have an easy time of it in Virginia in 2016 - and am I right in maintaining that for the Democrats, holding onto Kerry's states from 2004 plus Virginia and Ohio mathematically equals victory in 2016?

That could work, but OH and VA will still be squeakers. It will depend on who the Republicans nominate. Jeb Bush will be tough to beat.

As for Dave89's misgivings about Hillary: Unlike Obama, she could console herself with the idea that a war against the jihadists would also be a war against misogyny and homophobia (and it would be, too), and also console herself with the fact that a "general mobilization" war would, by necessity, result in a truly massive redistribution of wealth (as it indeed did, during World War II) - and the latter will be a terrible surprise for corporate America!

It worked last time around! Don't expect it until the mid 2020s though.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

Hillary in office would be as bad as a Neocon. She has no problem with starting wars. She voted yes for Iraq, has supported military action every time it has came up. Hillary is willing to go as far as nuke Iran, which would likely start a global nuclear war. Russia is allied with Iran basically. She has voted in favor of the Patriot Act. She believes national security is more important than rights. Hillary is just another establishment candidate willing to do the bidding of corporate America.

I disagree that Hillary has no problem with starting wars, just because she voted for the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean she would do what Bush did as president. She is a diplomat and understands the value of diplomacy. I see no evidence she is willing to nuke Iran, but even Obama has not taken military action against Iran off the table. I don't think Russia would back Iran.

On the other hand, she does have corporate ties. She would go along with the establishment on national security vs. rights. She is not a pure peoples' Democrat. But it is wrong to forget her liberal principles and ideals. The Republicans sure won't. She is a feminist champion and an apostle of health care reform. She cares about the middle class and equality. She would continue Obama's actions on climate change and energy conversion.

So, like most presidents, she would be a mixed bag. A better bag than any Republican, by far. Republicans are just evil. Saying the parties are meaningless is just meaningless hyperbole. At this point, it is plain suicide to allow any Republican to take any power, if there's any alternative. We are committing suicide right now. The Republicans ARE our 4T. Are we just going to continue the process in 2016, just because Hillary is far from perfect?

I don't know if I would even vote for her. If I were living in Ohio or Virginia though, I would have to seriously consider it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I disagree that Hillary has no problem with starting wars, just because she voted for the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean she would do what Bush did as president. She is a diplomat and understands the value of diplomacy. I see no evidence she is willing to nuke Iran, but even Obama has not taken military action against Iran off the table. I don't think Russia would back Iran.

On the other hand, she does have corporate ties. She would go along with the establishment on national security vs. rights. She is not a pure peoples' Democrat. But it is wrong to forget her liberal principles and ideals. The Republicans sure won't. She is a feminist champion and an apostle of health care reform. She cares about the middle class and equality. She would continue Obama's actions on climate change and energy conversion.

So, like most presidents, she would be a mixed bag. A better bag than any Republican, by far. Republicans are just evil. Saying the parties are meaningless is just meaningless hyperbole. At this point, it is plain suicide to allow any Republican to take any power, if there's any alternative. We are committing suicide right now. The Republicans ARE our 4T. Are we just going to continue the process in 2016, just because Hillary is far from perfect?

I don't know if I would even vote for her. If I were living in Ohio or Virginia though, I would have to seriously consider it.

Depending on who the Reps barf up, and if there are not any alternative party candidates who excite me, I may end up voting for her.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Depending on who the Reps barf up, and if there are not any alternative party candidates who excite me, I may end up voting for her.

Kudos to you for considering this. Barf up, that's what it is

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/

Check out this essay in this month's Harper's. Unless Harper's is trying to curry favor among Republicans, one is not left with much enthusiasm for her candidacy. Extremely UN-flattering ...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Clinton looks like the nominee. Noone else is either running or has any name recognition or reputation. I disagree that Hillary is "crooked."

My woo-woo thinks she is crooked. So I'm going to vote my woo-woo on that one. It's sort of like I think my woo-woo allows me to grow stuff real well. I just harvested a shitpot of winecaps. . I think that may be the truth behind "person X has a "green thumb". I just don't post as much about my woo-woo as you do is all.

Millies don't appear to be herdable. What's the use of getting their votes in a presidential election, only to watch them cede the field to older folks in the midterms, who reverse everything they voted for? Millies appear to be useless, regardless of their numbers.

I have 5 Millie nephews and judging by how they act, I have a bit more confidence in them. I think the problem lies in a communications breakdown.

Generational appeals mean less than nothing. You can't "align two cohort sets." Nobody cares about that except the very few people on this forum.

Not needed. An easier way is an easier familial relationship.

Jonesers = parents/aunts/uncles of midwave millies.

There's also an economic tie in. Jonesers came of age with that very nasty early 1980's double dip recession.

Originally Posted by TnT

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/

Check out this essay in this month's Harper's. Unless Harper's is trying to curry favor among Republicans, one is not left with much enthusiasm for her candidacy. Extremely UN-flattering ...

Here's her campaign song.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Depending on who the Reps barf up, and if there are not any alternative party candidates who excite me, I may end up voting for her.

With the way things are looking I'll be casting a third party protest vote. If it's Hillary Vs. Jeb I'll cast a protest vote.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

With the way things are looking I'll be casting a third party protest vote. If it's Hillary Vs. Jeb I'll cast a protest vote.

I feel the same.