Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

That is clearly one of his strong points, but it also means that support will be quite fickle. We see this already in a more recent poll: College students now saying they like Kerry better. It also highlights a lack of support for GOP positions in general... And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC?

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

May I submit that we won't have a clue as to how the Millies really feel until the Decision '04 exit polling begins? This is, after all, the very first Presidential election in which significant numbers of Millennials are eligible to vote at all! It is very possible that many of them haven't made up their minds just yet. Why don't we let them do just that? (FWIW, my now-17-year-old nephew, who will be eligible to vote this fall, seemed to lean Bush last time around...don't know if he still does or not. I imagine it may hinge on how he feels about his Dad being directly involved in the War).

And what do the McGovernites of '72 have to do with anything, anyway??? Not only were absolutely none of the new Millennial voters born yet, but fully half of the Xers weren't either!

Hillary Clinton leaves Jamaica Holidayed at Tryall

The Jamaica Observer
Monday, April 19, 2004

FORMER US first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, left Jamaica yesterday after a one-week vacation at the exclusive Tryall Club in Hanover, highly placed sources confirmed.

Hotel officials declined to confirm or deny Rodham Clinton's stay at the property, but one knowledgeable source told the Observer: "She had a quiet, delightful and restful holiday. That was the way she wanted it."

According to Observer sources, between her aides, friends and Secret Service protectors Rodham Clinton's entourage occupied 40 rooms.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC?

My "obsession" tells me that JFK wouldn't have a prayer if "that woman," HRC, opts to steal the nomination at the Convention in Boston, JFK's own home turf, this summer.

My "obsession" tells me that whatever "that woman" wants "that woman" gets. :wink:

Hillary Clinton leaves Jamaica Holidayed at Tryall

The Jamaica Observer
Monday, April 19, 2004

FORMER US first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, left Jamaica yesterday after a one-week vacation at the exclusive Tryall Club in Hanover, highly placed sources confirmed.

Hotel officials declined to confirm or deny Rodham Clinton's stay at the property, but one knowledgeable source told the Observer: "She had a quiet, delightful and restful holiday. That was the way she wanted it."

According to Observer sources, between her aides, friends and Secret Service protectors Rodham Clinton's entourage occupied 40 rooms.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC?

My "obsession" tells me that JFK wouldn't have a prayer if "that woman," HRC, opts to steal the nomination at the Convention in Boston, JFK's own home turf, this summer.

My "obsession" tells me that whatever "that woman" wants "that woman" gets. :wink:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And what do the McGovernites of '72 have to do with anything, anyway??? Not only were absolutely none of the new Millennial voters born yet, but fully half of the Xers weren't either!

Really? Hmm, I'd better get my dusty calculator out, running the numbers in my head has been giving me some "fuzzy math" of late. :wink:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And what do the McGovernites of '72 have to do with anything, anyway??? Not only were absolutely none of the new Millennial voters born yet, but fully half of the Xers weren't either!

Really? Hmm, I'd better get my dusty calculator out, running the numbers in my head has been giving me some "fuzzy math" of late. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Hillary Clinton leaves Jamaica Holidayed at Tryall

The Jamaica Observer
Monday, April 19, 2004

FORMER US first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, left Jamaica yesterday after a one-week vacation at the exclusive Tryall Club in Hanover, highly placed sources confirmed.

Hotel officials declined to confirm or deny Rodham Clinton's stay at the property, but one knowledgeable source told the Observer: "She had a quiet, delightful and restful holiday. That was the way she wanted it."

According to Observer sources, between her aides, friends and Secret Service protectors Rodham Clinton's entourage occupied 40 rooms.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC?

My "obsession" tells me that JFK wouldn't have a prayer if "that woman," HRC, opts to steal the nomination at the Convention in Boston, JFK's own home turf, this summer.

My "obsession" tells me that whatever "that woman" wants "that woman" gets. :wink:

I make a prediction here if Bush is re-elected; the 2008 presidential election will be a race between Hillary Clinton and Bill Owens or Hillary Clinton and Arnold Schwarznegger (if that amendment to allow foreign born US citizens passes).

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Hillary Clinton leaves Jamaica Holidayed at Tryall

The Jamaica Observer
Monday, April 19, 2004

FORMER US first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, left Jamaica yesterday after a one-week vacation at the exclusive Tryall Club in Hanover, highly placed sources confirmed.

Hotel officials declined to confirm or deny Rodham Clinton's stay at the property, but one knowledgeable source told the Observer: "She had a quiet, delightful and restful holiday. That was the way she wanted it."

According to Observer sources, between her aides, friends and Secret Service protectors Rodham Clinton's entourage occupied 40 rooms.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC?

My "obsession" tells me that JFK wouldn't have a prayer if "that woman," HRC, opts to steal the nomination at the Convention in Boston, JFK's own home turf, this summer.

My "obsession" tells me that whatever "that woman" wants "that woman" gets. :wink:

I make a prediction here if Bush is re-elected; the 2008 presidential election will be a race between Hillary Clinton and Bill Owens or Hillary Clinton and Arnold Schwarznegger (if that amendment to allow foreign born US citizens passes).

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Duly noted... however, I must confess my utter dismay in that everytime I mention the Clinton name I am immediately accused of being "obsessed." Does this recall of recent history and the present tense suggest I have a problem or they? After all, this doesn't happen when I talk Reagan (they just call me stupid) or FDR (they just say I don't understand the times). Furthermore, it is a well known fact that McGovern intentionally wooed the Boomers in 1972... so bad was his defeat that I dared say they've never tried that stunt again!

And finally, this site is inhabited by known kooks from the left side of the Banke. They own this place. I should therefore be highly commended on my ability to tread where no angel in his/her right mind would dare.

:wink:

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Duly noted... however, I must confess my utter dismay in that everytime I mention the Clinton name I am immediately accused of being "obsessed." Does this recall of recent history and the present tense suggest I have a problem or they? After all, this doesn't happen when I talk Reagan (they just call me stupid) or FDR (they just say I don't understand the times). Furthermore, it is a well known fact that McGovern intentionally wooed the Boomers in 1972... so bad was his defeat that I dared say they've never tried that stunt again!

And finally, this site is inhabited by known kooks from the left side of the Banke. They own this place. I should therefore be highly commended on my ability to tread where no angel in his/her right mind would dare.

:wink:

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

I'm not sure how you conclude that the statistics cited are a bad sign for the Democrats. True, specific party identification is somewhat lower among this group than among the voting population at large (58% vs 71%), but this is to be expected, since both political parties consciously represent themselves as the bearer of (now outmoded) traditions; i.e. as the parties of the Millies' parents. The increased willingness to support military action was also predicted by S&H (as stated in the article), so this should be no surprise either.

In fact, the news for the Republican party is significantly worse, because the article points out that support for Bush is mostly due to his personal popularity ("Young people are trending Republican because they like Bush.") That is clearly one of his strong points, but it also means that support will be quite fickle. We see this already in a more recent poll: College students now saying they like Kerry better. It also highlights a lack of support for GOP positions in general (rather than Bush in particular); the only position mentioned is "going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do", which is of course also John Kerry's position (for what it's worth.) This indicates a serious lack of "coat-tails" on the part of Bush (i.e. his support does not translate to others on the ticket.) Other polls support this: Bush's poll numbers are consistently 8-10% higher than "generic Republican" support, across all demographic categories. (In contrast, Kerry's support is approximately the same as for the Democratic Party in general.)

Thus, come November, even if Bush wins the White House, the GOP will likely lose some seats in Congress. My prediction is for a loss of 2 Senate and 5 House seats; that gives Democrats control of the Senate, and leaves the GOP with a razor-thin majority in the House. (That's actually a best-case scenario for the GOP; if the Democrats win the House but Bush is still in the White House, I suspect impeachment proceedings would begin almost immediately -- impeachment only requires a simple majority.)

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

I'm not sure how you conclude that the statistics cited are a bad sign for the Democrats. True, specific party identification is somewhat lower among this group than among the voting population at large (58% vs 71%), but this is to be expected, since both political parties consciously represent themselves as the bearer of (now outmoded) traditions; i.e. as the parties of the Millies' parents. The increased willingness to support military action was also predicted by S&H (as stated in the article), so this should be no surprise either.

In fact, the news for the Republican party is significantly worse, because the article points out that support for Bush is mostly due to his personal popularity ("Young people are trending Republican because they like Bush.") That is clearly one of his strong points, but it also means that support will be quite fickle. We see this already in a more recent poll: College students now saying they like Kerry better. It also highlights a lack of support for GOP positions in general (rather than Bush in particular); the only position mentioned is "going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do", which is of course also John Kerry's position (for what it's worth.) This indicates a serious lack of "coat-tails" on the part of Bush (i.e. his support does not translate to others on the ticket.) Other polls support this: Bush's poll numbers are consistently 8-10% higher than "generic Republican" support, across all demographic categories. (In contrast, Kerry's support is approximately the same as for the Democratic Party in general.)

Thus, come November, even if Bush wins the White House, the GOP will likely lose some seats in Congress. My prediction is for a loss of 2 Senate and 5 House seats; that gives Democrats control of the Senate, and leaves the GOP with a razor-thin majority in the House. (That's actually a best-case scenario for the GOP; if the Democrats win the House but Bush is still in the White House, I suspect impeachment proceedings would begin almost immediately -- impeachment only requires a simple majority.)

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

The study revealing that 62 percent of 18 to 29 years olds support Bush is a big shocking to me. I know noboday of any age I have talked to recently who wants to see Bush re-elected. In fact, they all seem totally turned off by him. Yet many are not sure Kerry is the answer, either.

"How could he have been elected?! Nobody I know voted for him!" -- legendary comment


It's very, very uncertain to try to extrapolate from anecdotal experiences to predict election outcomes. We all have known and unknown 'selection effects' in who we know and who we encounter, which can produce enormous differences between anecdotal experience and the actual views of the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

The study revealing that 62 percent of 18 to 29 years olds support Bush is a big shocking to me. I know noboday of any age I have talked to recently who wants to see Bush re-elected. In fact, they all seem totally turned off by him. Yet many are not sure Kerry is the answer, either.

"How could he have been elected?! Nobody I know voted for him!" -- legendary comment


It's very, very uncertain to try to extrapolate from anecdotal experiences to predict election outcomes. We all have known and unknown 'selection effects' in who we know and who we encounter, which can produce enormous differences between anecdotal experience and the actual views of the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Marc,

The Millennials have not emerged politically as a generation. The Millennials like the GI's before them will support either one of the major parties pretty strongly, like the GI's supported the Democratic party pretty strongly.

That's not a sure thing, especially not at first. The G.I.s took quite some time to crystalize into a generational identity, in fact, it didn't really happen until after the Fourth Turning began in 1929. By that point, the leading-edge G.I.s were in their late 20s (depending on the cutoff date between the Lost and the G.I.s).

The oldest Millennials, today, are barely in their early 20s.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Marc,

The Millennials have not emerged politically as a generation. The Millennials like the GI's before them will support either one of the major parties pretty strongly, like the GI's supported the Democratic party pretty strongly.

That's not a sure thing, especially not at first. The G.I.s took quite some time to crystalize into a generational identity, in fact, it didn't really happen until after the Fourth Turning began in 1929. By that point, the leading-edge G.I.s were in their late 20s (depending on the cutoff date between the Lost and the G.I.s).

The oldest Millennials, today, are barely in their early 20s.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Duly noted... however, I must confess my utter dismay in that everytime I mention the Clinton name I am immediately accused of being "obsessed." Does this recall of recent history and the present tense suggest I have a problem or they? After all, this doesn't happen when I talk Reagan (they just call me stupid) or FDR (they just say I don't understand the times). Furthermore, it is a well known fact that McGovern intentionally wooed the Boomers in 1972... so bad was his defeat that I dared say they've never tried that stunt again!

And finally, this site is inhabited by known kooks from the left side of the Banke. They own this place. I should therefore be highly commended on my ability to tread where no angel in his/her right mind would dare.

:wink:

You're not alone, Marc. Though it's true the T4T regular posters these days tilt somewhat Left, you aren't the only one here who doesn't.

BTW, you're record for prediction is as good as anyone's here, (which may or may not be considered a compliment.) :lol:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Oh, I disagree. Just ask the McGovernites from 1972. Given that I falsely predicted the the GOP would break a sixty-eight year long midterm election trend in 2002, I wouldn't dare to crawl out on the limb again this year. And, yes, my "obession" with HRC is rather cumbersome baggage I needless haul around.

I was just trying to be funny and obnoxious as usual with my post. Please ignore. :wink:

Marc,

You are a bit on a strange side and fiercely partisan, however occasionally you have some good insights. In this business generational analysis, you got to be clearer headed and less partisan.

Duly noted... however, I must confess my utter dismay in that everytime I mention the Clinton name I am immediately accused of being "obsessed." Does this recall of recent history and the present tense suggest I have a problem or they? After all, this doesn't happen when I talk Reagan (they just call me stupid) or FDR (they just say I don't understand the times). Furthermore, it is a well known fact that McGovern intentionally wooed the Boomers in 1972... so bad was his defeat that I dared say they've never tried that stunt again!

And finally, this site is inhabited by known kooks from the left side of the Banke. They own this place. I should therefore be highly commended on my ability to tread where no angel in his/her right mind would dare.

:wink:

You're not alone, Marc. Though it's true the T4T regular posters these days tilt somewhat Left, you aren't the only one here who doesn't.

BTW, you're record for prediction is as good as anyone's here, (which may or may not be considered a compliment.) :lol:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And what do the McGovernites of '72 have to do with anything, anyway??? Not only were absolutely none of the new Millennial voters born yet, but fully half of the Xers weren't either!

He's making the point that the 'college vote' rarely if ever decides an American Federal election. Candidates who focus on that age bracket tend to discover that they're unreliable voters when the day comes, and that they aren't sufficiently numerous to matter anyway (i.e. McGovern tried to 'appeal to youth' and got shellacked on Election Day).

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And what do the McGovernites of '72 have to do with anything, anyway??? Not only were absolutely none of the new Millennial voters born yet, but fully half of the Xers weren't either!

He's making the point that the 'college vote' rarely if ever decides an American Federal election. Candidates who focus on that age bracket tend to discover that they're unreliable voters when the day comes, and that they aren't sufficiently numerous to matter anyway (i.e. McGovern tried to 'appeal to youth' and got shellacked on Election Day).

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Actually there is a good chance the Republicans could get gains in the House and Senate, if Bush gets re-elected in a landslide.

However I am predicting the status quo in Congress, control of the Senate will probably be a toss up. Given the outrageous gerrymannering in House of Reps which has allowed for many ultra-safe republican and democratic districts and few districts which can change parties.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Actually there is a good chance the Republicans could get gains in the House and Senate, if Bush gets re-elected in a landslide.

However I am predicting the status quo in Congress, control of the Senate will probably be a toss up. Given the outrageous gerrymannering in House of Reps which has allowed for many ultra-safe republican and democratic districts and few districts which can change parties.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Actually there is a good chance the Republicans could get gains in the House and Senate, if Bush gets re-elected in a landslide.

However I am predicting the status quo in Congress, control of the Senate will probably be a toss up.

True, the Senate is the weakest GOP 'hold', for various reasons. But even here they've got a fair chance, if they don't self-destruct.

Given the outrageous gerrymannering in House of Reps which has allowed for many ultra-safe republican and democratic districts and few districts which can change parties.

Too true.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Barring massive GOP screwups, (which could happen) the GOP is nearly 100% sure to hold the House and highly likely to the hold the Senate. If Bush gets reelected, the Democrats have almost no chance of regaining either chamber. It may all come down to who does the best 'get out the vote' job on Election Day.

Actually there is a good chance the Republicans could get gains in the House and Senate, if Bush gets re-elected in a landslide.

However I am predicting the status quo in Congress, control of the Senate will probably be a toss up.

True, the Senate is the weakest GOP 'hold', for various reasons. But even here they've got a fair chance, if they don't self-destruct.

Given the outrageous gerrymannering in House of Reps which has allowed for many ultra-safe republican and democratic districts and few districts which can change parties.

Too true.