But what about the defeats of the '60s - which the right have so skillfully exploited ever since?

Well, let's get back on topic.

Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the United States of America are in terrible trouble. The odds of a Republican being elected next time are certainly in the 50-50 range--and the myth of an army of Millennial progressives ready to change the world has been exposed.

The following table, showing changes in party identification, comes from the Pew Research Center and is printed courtesy of the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ml?ref=opinion


(I haven't been able to make it appear in the post. I'm sure some one can--please do.)

Among whites every demographic is now at least 5 points more Republican than it was in 2008 The biggest shift by far is among Millennials, who are ten points more Republican than they were then. Even black Americans are slightly more Republican. Hispanics are the exception.

Barack Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, came into office in the midst of an economic crisis with a huge, potential hero generation coming of age. Both of them had two years to do something about the economy and show that generation that they were on its side. FDR did just that, increased his Congressional majorities, and went even further down that path in the second half of his first term. Barack Obama totally failed to do that, suffered a crushing defeat in the midterms, and has been forced to retrench, leading to stagnation, at best, in the economy.

I have said from the beginning that the Millennials would only become the new GIs if they got the same kind of leadership as the GIs. They didn't, and it looks as if they won't. They will have to act out their heroic instincts on a small scale.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, let's get back on topic.

Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the United States of America are in terrible trouble. The odds of a Republican being elected next time are certainly in the 50-50 range--and the myth of an army of Millennial progressives ready to change the world has been exposed.

The following table, showing changes in party identification, comes from the Pew Research Center and is printed courtesy of the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ml?ref=opinion


(I haven't been able to make it appear in the post. I'm sure some one can--please do.)

Among whites every demographic is now at least 5 points more Republican than it was in 2008 The biggest shift by far is among Millennials, who are ten points more Republican than they were then. Even black Americans are slightly more Republican. Hispanics are the exception.

Barack Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, came into office in the midst of an economic crisis with a huge, potential hero generation coming of age. Both of them had two years to do something about the economy and show that generation that they were on its side. FDR did just that, increased his Congressional majorities, and went even further down that path in the second half of his first term. Barack Obama totally failed to do that, suffered a crushing defeat in the midterms, and has been forced to retrench, leading to stagnation, at best, in the economy.

I have said from the beginning that the Millennials would only become the new GIs if they got the same kind of leadership as the GIs. They didn't, and it looks as if they won't. They will have to act out their heroic instincts on a small scale.

I wish I had data or something concrete to share...but something "weird" is going on with my peers and younger. Around 2005, the lines were drawn and some of my friends were either Republican or Democrat. Now, some strong conservatives I know are questioning themselves and wondering if they are liberal and the democrats I know are still democrats,but maybe now hair left of center due to fiscal issues.

I guess, my point is...is there anything to show that Yers and millennials are becoming more centric, in rejecting the extremes of both parties and looking for solutions that reflect a mix of the two?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, let's get back on topic.

Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the United States of America are in terrible trouble. The odds of a Republican being elected next time are certainly in the 50-50 range--and the myth of an army of Millennial progressives ready to change the world has been exposed.

The following table, showing changes in party identification, comes from the Pew Research Center and is printed courtesy of the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ml?ref=opinion


(I haven't been able to make it appear in the post. I'm sure some one can--please do.)

Among whites every demographic is now at least 5 points more Republican than it was in 2008 The biggest shift by far is among Millennials, who are ten points more Republican than they were then. Even black Americans are slightly more Republican. Hispanics are the exception.

Barack Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, came into office in the midst of an economic crisis with a huge, potential hero generation coming of age. Both of them had two years to do something about the economy and show that generation that they were on its side. FDR did just that, increased his Congressional majorities, and went even further down that path in the second half of his first term. Barack Obama totally failed to do that, suffered a crushing defeat in the midterms, and has been forced to retrench, leading to stagnation, at best, in the economy.

I have said from the beginning that the Millennials would only become the new GIs if they got the same kind of leadership as the GIs. They didn't, and it looks as if they won't. They will have to act out their heroic instincts on a small scale.

Do you think this could be because the democrats aren't championing things that will benefit the millies? Let's face it, people are generally pretty selfish when it comes to voting for their own pocketbooks. Social security and medicare are so far down the road for these young kids that they don't feel emotionally connected to it. It's just not an immediate concern. Healthcare is not a big issue for the millies because they are young, they are generally still pretty healthy and rarely have to even see a doctor. Unemployment is higher for the millies than any other age bracket. The ever rising cost of college is a big, big issue for the millies. They are either worried about how they are going to come up $50,000 a year or they are saddled with huge college loans that will take them forever to pay off. These are a couple of the issues that the millies are most concerned about. Once again, the democratic party stopped speaking the language of the people who helped them get elected, just like they threw the blue collar under the bus years ago with NAFTA.

Instead the Republican party has picked up the mantel, and keeps telling the millies that we are spending their future and they will be the ones who have will get stuck with bill. When Obama initially took office, he talked about student loan reform, but that has been put on the back burner. If the democrats really want win the millies back over, they need to focus more on student loan reform, unemployment and earth friendly legislation as these are things that millies are most concerned about...But I don't think they are going to.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Do you think this could be because the democrats aren't championing things that will benefit the millies? Let's face it, people are generally pretty selfish when it comes to voting for their own pocketbooks. Social security and medicare are so far down the road for these young kids that they don't feel emotionally connected to it. It's just not an immediate concern. Healthcare is not a big issue for the millies because they are young, they are generally still pretty healthy and rarely have to even see a doctor. Unemployment is higher for the millies than any other age bracket. The ever rising cost of college is a big, big issue for the millies. They are either worried about how they are going to come up $50,000 a year or they are saddled with huge college loans that will take them forever to pay off. These are a couple of the issues that the millies are most concerned about. Once again, the democratic party stopped speaking the language of the people who helped them get elected, just like they threw the blue collar under the bus years ago with NAFTA.

Yes, of course. Like FDR, Obama had to win the young heroes over with deeds. It's very interesting generationally. As a climbing nomad he dedicated himself to the system and it repaid him. He doesn't realize that isn't working for the Millennials.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Do you think this could be because the democrats aren't championing things that will benefit the millies? Let's face it, people are generally pretty selfish when it comes to voting for their own pocketbooks. Social security and medicare are so far down the road for these young kids that they don't feel emotionally connected to it. It's just not an immediate concern. Healthcare is not a big issue for the millies because they are young, they are generally still pretty healthy and rarely have to even see a doctor. Unemployment is higher for the millies than any other age bracket. The ever rising cost of college is a big, big issue for the millies. They are either worried about how they are going to come up $50,000 a year or they are saddled with huge college loans that will take them forever to pay off. These are a couple of the issues that the millies are most concerned about. Once again, the democratic party stopped speaking the language of the people who helped them get elected, just like they threw the blue collar under the bus years ago with NAFTA.

Instead the Republican party has picked up the mantel, and keeps telling the millies that we are spending their future and they will be the ones who have will get stuck with bill. When Obama initially took office, he talked about student loan reform, but that has been put on the back burner. If the democrats really want win the millies back over, they need to focus more on student loan reform, unemployment and earth friendly legislation as these are things that millies are most concerned about...But I don't think they are going to.

You are right, the Republicans (in power) and in the form of conservative Joneser/Xer parents are using the same jargon about our future...and playing the whole moral card. They give off the appearance that they are convicted...strong and sticking to their guns like John Wayne cowboys. However to me, it's starting to feel like they are using the same buzz words over and over again, and I don't know when folks are going to require that they go deeper. Meanwhile, the democrats seem like they are meeting in the middle but are soft about it.

It's starting feel like it's all about appearance these days and I hate to admit that I do not trust voters to actually know what is really being said.

Here we go again with another Rep misbehaving himself.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59706.html

Rep. David Wu has been accused of an “unwanted sexual encounter” with the teenage daughter of a longtime friend, the latest scandal to engulf the troubled Oregon Democrat.

The Oregonian reported that the 56-year-old Wu “acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual,” according to sources aware of the incident.
Continue Reading
POLITICO 44

The unidentified teenager and her family did not file any criminal complaint over the incident, which apparently took place sometime around last Thanksgiving.

Calling the episode “very serious,” Wu did not specifically address allegations that he made unwanted sexual advances toward the young woman who is the daughter of a donor.
“This is very serious, and I have absolutely no desire to bring unwanted publicity, attention or stress to a young woman and her family,” Wu said.
The Oregonian reported the person involved graduated from high school in 2010 but did not mention her age. She and her family declined to speak to the newspaper.
Wu, who is being treated for an unspecified mental health condition, is separated from his wife Michelle and the couple reportedly is seeking a divorce. They have two children.
Wu, who was born in Taiwan is the first Chinese-American elected to Congress and has served in the House since 1999.
This episode is the latest in a long list of troubling incidents for Wu, including a previous allegation of sexual assault lodged against him by a former girlfriend when they were both attending Stanford University in 1976. Wu was not charged with a crime, but he was made to see a counselor and was disciplined by the university.
This incident was reported by The Oregonian shortly before the 2004 elections. Wu admitted to “inexcusable behavior on my part” when confronted about the allegations.
“As a 21-year-old, I hurt someone I cared very much about. I take full responsibility for my actions and I am very sorry,” Wu said in a statement to The Oregonian. “This single event forever changed my life and the person that I have become.”
Shortly before the 2010 elections, Wu began behaving erratically, according to The Oregonian and other news outlets. Wu sent a bizarre picture of himself in a tiger costume to his staffers, and some of them urged him to seek psychiatric help. More than a half dozen staffers and campaign consultants quit as Wu bombarded them with troubling phone calls and emails.
“I freely admit that it was an intense campaign, and I was not always at my best with staff or constituents,” Wu said in a statement to Williamette Week, a Portland newspaper. “For all those moments, I wish I’d been better and I apologize.”
These latest allegations against Wu add to the growing list of sex scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill over the past two years.
Former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) recently resigned from Congress following a national firestorm over lewd photos he sent to women he met over the Internet.
Former Rep. Christopher Lee (R-N.Y.) was caught sending a topless online photo and also resigned. Former Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) had an affair with one of his campaign aides, who also happened to be the wife of his deputy chief of staff. Ensign stepped down from office on May 3.
And ex-Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) quickly departed Capitol Hill in March 2010 after POLITICO reported he was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations of sexual harassment of male staffers. The Ethics Committee recently announced that it will continue looking into whether any Democratic lawmakers or staffers knew about those allegations but failed to take action against Massa.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1SwKBnqCU

I think there's a subconscious need for millies to want boundaries after being in a more loose 3T world. I'm not necessarily saying those boundaries should mean cut, cap and balance....but someone who says, "Look...here is what we are going to do, here is the plan...to stop this from happening...because we don't want this and that to happen. It will not happen for the sake of our future. There must be conviction. With real conviction a leader can believe and make us all believe that we can land on the moon by the end of the decade.

For any political party to connect to Millennials, they need to exhibit more resolve on issues such as gay rights, the environment, job opportunities, and maybe infrastructure. Based on this, the GOP can't carry the Millies for the long-term, but the Dems will struggle to if they continue being soft on these issues. This is the result of the Democratic Party being led by old adaptives and a Eisenhower-like nomad.

Therefore, Millennials seem to be in a political conundrum.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

and the myth of an army of Millennial progressives ready to change the world has been exposed.

Not by that poll it hasn't. A change in party identification becomes meaningful and significant only in the context of the original identification percentage, which is not presented here.

Bear in mind that being a progressive and being a Democrat are not identical. Obama will need to win over the Millennials by being progressive.

I would dispute that 50-50 assertion about his chances to win reelection by the way. I think that's how I would call it if Romney wins the nomination, but it's looking more and more like a Bachmann match. I think he would win that handily.

EDIT: I think Wes called it perfectly.

I wonder if the number of those registering as independent and/or not affiliated is greater then those changing to the Republican party.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I would dispute that 50-50 assertion about his chances to win reelection by the way. I think that's how I would call it if Romney wins the nomination, but it's looking more and more like a Bachmann match. I think he would win that handily.

EDIT: I think Wes called it perfectly.

Don't be so sure about this. Granted at this point she is viewed by many as a bit crazy and with good reason. That said, there are still 16 months left for her to remake her image, and 16 more months for Obama to govern as President. If she manages to look more sane in the upcoming election and Obama is unable to show strong leadership in at least trying to get the US back on track..she could conceivably win.

I've met a lot of millennials who have bought into Reganomics. One of my classmates in college always attributed Clinton's budget success to just that. Also there seems to be a back and forth trend within each generation politically. Boomers: Aquarians = Blue, Disco = Red, Gen X: Atari = Red, Nintendo = Blue, Millennials: Gen Y = Blue, NeoDisney (Thanks Chas) = Red. So if I had to predict the adaptive generation's political standing I'd say the first wave will be red and the second wave will be Blue.

I probably should have put left and right instead of red and blue, but the point remains the same. Now this isn't exact a whole generation may lean a certain way, but the different halves at least have different degrees. I wonder if moderate would fit in anywhere. I actually think the cusps would be more moderate at least I think I'm moderate and feel a lot of my cohort is in agreement with me. I have no data to back it up though.

I do think neither major party has truly tapped into the millennial generation as far as policy goes. Obama's rhetoric did wonders, but expectations were too high. They thought EVERYTHING was because of Bush and it's a little more complex than that.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I've met a lot of millennials who have bought into Reganomics.

Of course you have. In the 1930s, you could have met a lot of GIs who bought into laissez-faire, if you looked for them. In 1968, you could have met a lot of Boomers who approved of the Vietnam War -- if you looked for them. (And in fact, I did know plenty of Boomers who were for the war.) To say that a generation leans strongly in a particular direction is not to say that there aren't members of it who lean the other way. But by the same token, the fact that one can find and meet members of the generation who lean the other way is not a refutation of the claim that, as a whole, it leans one way.

So if I had to predict the adaptive generation's political standing I'd say the first wave will be red and the second wave will be Blue.

By the time our new adaptives come of age, which will start happening when the Crisis is over, the meanings of liberal and conservative in terms of issues will have changed. The coming-of-age adaptives will, if the theory holds true, be conservative compared to Millennials according to the issues of the time, but that doesn't mean they will be conservative by today's standards. Conservatism by today's standards will by that time have virtually ceased to exist. I would agree that they will become more liberal in later cohorts, but again that will be according to the issues of the time, not according to today's standards. Since the last adaptives will come of age on the edge of the Awakening, the burning issue that defines their more liberal approach will probably be moral issues, something comparable to civil rights for the Silent.

I do think neither major party has truly tapped into the millennial generation as far as policy goes.

And there you have the secret behind all the back-and-forth. A progressive Millennial, which describes most of the generation, rejects the GOP for obvious reasons, but the Democrats have not offered him/her the real deal, either. This is a generation whose collective mission is to fix the civic order so that it provides well-being for the people. The Democrats will not gain their loyalty until they begin offering ways to do that which pass the bullshit test.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course you have. In the 1930s, you could have met a lot of GIs who bought into laissez-faire, if you looked for them. In 1968, you could have met a lot of Boomers who approved of the Vietnam War -- if you looked for them. (And in fact, I did know plenty of Boomers who were for the war.) To say that a generation leans strongly in a particular direction is not to say that there aren't members of it who lean the other way. But by the same token, the fact that one can find and meet members of the generation who lean the other way is not a refutation of the claim that, as a whole, it leans one way.



By the time our new adaptives come of age, which will start happening when the Crisis is over, the meanings of liberal and conservative in terms of issues will have changed. The coming-of-age adaptives will, if the theory holds true, be conservative compared to Millennials according to the issues of the time, but that doesn't mean they will be conservative by today's standards. Conservatism by today's standards will by that time have virtually ceased to exist. I would agree that they will become more liberal in later cohorts, but again that will be according to the issues of the time, not according to today's standards. Since the last adaptives will come of age on the edge of the Awakening, the burning issue that defines their more liberal approach will probably be moral issues, something comparable to civil rights for the Silent.



And there you have the secret behind all the back-and-forth. A progressive Millennial, which describes most of the generation, rejects the GOP for obvious reasons, but the Democrats have not offered him/her the real deal, either. This is a generation whose collective mission is to fix the civic order so that it provides well-being for the people. The Democrats will not gain their loyalty until they begin offering ways to do that which pass the bullshit test.

Just a note I am speaking more from experience than actual evidence here so I could be wrong and I know the Conservative and Liberal change over time as well so I get that. I'm just saying that I THINK that if we polled people based on generation right now we would see some sort of pattern akin to what I described, but probably in a faint way.

Some of you won't like me saying this, but altruistic millennials can fix the civic order privately. The federal government isn't the only game in town. It may not be the best way in some people's opinion, but it's not necessary for the federal government to be the vehicle with which most of the change takes place. Of course, it will change, but they obviously haven't thrown their generational weight around enough yet to do much aside from Obama's victory in 2008.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

the meanings of liberal and conservative in terms of issues will have changed.

I agree with this statement and think millies registering as independent or leaning center doesn't mean they don't care about political parties or the process (like some Xers who didn't want to rock the vote) but this reflect their opinion that the current political groups need a major make over.

I'm not so sure those in power are willing to see this, which will help to bring in a new order for the next saeculum.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I think there's a subconscious need for millies to want boundaries after being in a more loose 3T world. I'm not necessarily saying those boundaries should mean cut, cap and balance....but someone who says, "Look...here is what we are going to do, here is the plan...to stop this from happening...because we don't want this and that to happen. It will not happen for the sake of our future. There must be conviction. With real conviction a leader can believe and make us all believe that we can land on the moon by the end of the decade.

I understand the Millies and their attraction to the Republican message but what about all of these other generations we normally see at the Teabagger gatherings? I mean, I just sit in amazement at these Boomers with the tea bags hanging off of their hats. Then there are those patriot outfits that look more like the Quaker guy on the oat box than anything else.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I understand the Millies and their attraction to the Republican message but what about all of these other generations we normally see at the Teabagger gatherings? I mean, I just sit in amazement at these Boomers with the tea bags hanging off of their hats. Then there are those patriot outfits that look more like the Quaker guy on the oat box than anything else.

It also baffles me to see the elderly and those on the verge of retirement there.

Originally Posted by millennialX

It also baffles me to see the elderly and those on the verge of retirement there.

I laughed at the ignorance some of those War Baby TPers showed when they had posters that said "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!!!", LOL.

Tea Partiers attack, intimidate, and threaten MoveOn.Org group.

A small political gathering of about 18 liberal thinkers at River Forks Park Sunday afternoon erupted in conflict when about 35 members of the conservative tea party intruded upon the meeting, waving flags and holding signs accusing the rival group of being communists, Marxists and socialists.

The liberal group — organized by MoveOn.org — decided to leave the park and move its potluck to a nearby home. Members of the conservative group followed, parking at the entrance of a private lane leading to the home to continue their protest.

Roseburg Democrats Dean and Sara Byers said Monday they told tea party members who followed that they were not welcome to drive down the lane to their home.

The Byerses said they got out of their car to stop vehicles from entering the driveway and one tea party member almost ran them over.

Sara Byers said she was so shaken she called 911. She said a Douglas County deputy called about an hour and a half later and said he had been unable to respond because of other incidents. Byers said she was still considering filing a criminal complaint against members of the tea party for harassment.

A leader of the tea party group, Rich Raynor of Roseburg, disputed the liberal group's version of events.

“They are liars,” said Raynor, director of Douglas County Americans for Prosperity. “That is what communists do.”

Members of the smaller group said Monday they were intimidated by the tea partiers, whom they accused of violating their constitutional right to peacefully assembly.

Roseburg resident Lillen Fifield, 70, called the group's actions an “act of domestic terrorism” and said she was appalled that a peaceful gathering — mostly of women older than 65 — was interrupted.

“It is not OK to go around and intimidate and threaten people. That is not acceptable in a polite society,” Fifield said.

Conservative organizers defended their actions and said they will continue to protest similar gatherings.

“We were there to find out what they had to say and to bring a notice to the public that this kind of thing was going on. Quite honestly, if they have it again, then we are really going to make it well known,” Raynor said.

Raynor said the group believes MoveOn.org is a communist front and said he would not stand for America becoming a fascist nation.

Sara Byers said she could not believe the meeting was targeted for protest. She said the group supports the middle class and wants to take back the government from the stranglehold of corporations.

She laughed at the accusations of communism and said the two groups actually have more in common than people think.

“I just said, ‘Are you kidding me?' ” Byers said.

Tea party members posted a 2:46-minute video of the confrontation in the park and added captions.

On the video, heckling members of the larger group celebrate breaking up the meeting.

“That sure did it in a hurry, huh?” a man says. A woman references next year's election year and shouts, “Sure shows who is going to win! We are!”

As one woman packs up to leave, a man in a leather jacket tauntingly offers to carry her things.

“Do you want me to help? I mean if you are leaving, I'll help,” the man says in the video. A caption added to the video reads, “I'll help, just leave! And take your Marxist agenda with you.”

Raynor maintained the tea party's goal was to attend the meeting and hear what the rival group had to say.

He said the fact that they stopped the meeting and left proves they have something to hide.

Sutherlin conservative Karen Meier said she posed as a MoveOn.org member and infiltrated the group's meeting prior to the confrontation. She said she found many of the liberals to be pleasant.

“Obviously, they don't really know what MoveOn is and who it entails,” Meier said.

A MoveOn.org meeting attendee Lorna Hayden of Roseburg said the tea party mischaracterized the nature of the meeting. Still, any group, no matter what its agenda, has a right to be in the park Sunday without being harassed, she said.

Raynor said the tea party never threatened anyone with violence and said no one brought guns to the confrontation. He said he urged his group to be civil but also to stand up against a group they believe is harming America.

“It is not our fault that we outnumber them,” Raynor said. “The philosophy they espouse is not a live-and-let-live philosophy. ... I am fearful for my children and my grandchildren.”

Jackbooted thugs, that's what these TPers are. The bolded part shows that they are ignorant morons, too. The TPers would lynch people they didn't like if they could get away with it.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Do you think this could be because the democrats aren't championing things that will benefit the millies?

Agreed, the focus on healthcare killed Millennial enthusiasm for him. If he had tackled DADT first or done something environmental things might have been different.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, of course. Like FDR, Obama had to win the young heroes over with deeds. It's very interesting generationally. As a climbing nomad he dedicated himself to the system and it repaid him. He doesn't realize that isn't working for the Millennials.

Obama is making the mistake of trying to be exactly like FDR. Millennials are different from the GIs, we're more focused on how our current world needs to be improved than on future oriented policies. The political climate is also different, when FDR was in power, the United States was a relatively new player competing against France and England, who had more territory and prestige. Now we're top dog but most Millies believe that China will be more powerful than us by the time they are middle aged.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I've met a lot of millennials who have bought into Reganomics. One of my classmates in college always attributed Clinton's budget success to just that. Also there seems to be a back and forth trend within each generation politically. Boomers: Aquarians = Blue, Disco = Red, Gen X: Atari = Red, Nintendo = Blue, Millennials: Gen Y = Blue, NeoDisney (Thanks Chas) = Red. So if I had to predict the adaptive generation's political standing I'd say the first wave will be red and the second wave will be Blue.

I probably should have put left and right instead of red and blue, but the point remains the same. Now this isn't exact a whole generation may lean a certain way, but the different halves at least have different degrees. I wonder if moderate would fit in anywhere. I actually think the cusps would be more moderate at least I think I'm moderate and feel a lot of my cohort is in agreement with me. I have no data to back it up though.

I do think neither major party has truly tapped into the millennial generation as far as policy goes. Obama's rhetoric did wonders, but expectations were too high. They thought EVERYTHING was because of Bush and it's a little more complex than that.

I think that my cohorts aren't exactly 'Red' but we are more socially conservative than Yers in terms of how we view sex and relationships and probably fiscally too. However we're liberal on gay rights and environmental issues.

A person of either party could fill in this void by being very blunt and pragmatic about our future. If an Xer Republican said "hey look we need to deal with the debt so everything must be cut including all the pet projects of the corporations funding my campaign (sorry guys), we're going to run out of oil soon so we'd better deal with that too, China will be more powerful than us but that doesn't mean we should emulate them, oh yeah and religion has no place in civil marriage" then they'd be a Millennial darling. The ironic thing is that Obama does say all this but he doesn't act upon it and dresses it up in flowery language about "winning the future."

Originally Posted by pizal81

Just a note I am speaking more from experience than actual evidence here so I could be wrong and I know the Conservative and Liberal change over time as well so I get that. I'm just saying that I THINK that if we polled people based on generation right now we would see some sort of pattern akin to what I described, but probably in a faint way.

Most Millennial conservatives I know are very different from Boomer conservatives but that doesn't mean that their conservatism is any less authentic.

Originally Posted by millennialX

It also baffles me to see the elderly and those on the verge of retirement there.

I think the Tea Party is making up for its current lack of Millennial support by using the elderly in their place. It's an interesting twist on the 4T constellation but it makes sense because the elderly also have more time on their hands and tend to be politically passionate.

I am amazed at the extent to which young people and likely Millies are drawn to computerized social networking. As an old fart, I guess it would be expected that I am not especially attracted to Facebook, twittering, etc.

I wonder if, due to the extremely fast-moving nature of computerized social networking, if the Millie impact on politics might not come almost overnight, once some consolidating event brings them together.

I mean it could happen SO fast it would make all our heads spin.

-

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have never bragged about my rich daddy, partly because I never had one. I lived in very average three-bedroom houses as a kid and went to public schools until I was 16. Just for the record.

Meanwhile, thank you very much for confirming everything I said about you, and good-bye.



I have

You have what?

But according to your website and wiki page and tyour postings, you often drop the fact that your daddy was a big player for JFK. I did not know that JFK recruited top tier diplomats from the ghettos and trailer parks.

I hope for your return.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

You have what?

But according to your website and wiki page and tyour postings, you often drop the fact that your daddy was a big player for JFK. I did not know that JFK recruited top tier diplomats from the ghettos and trailer parks.

I hope for your return.

Aww man, Lady Gaga...you must be the one who is out of touch and rich one if you believe "a very average three-bedroom house" is something only found in the ghetto and trailer parks. I don't care what your beef is...but I just had to comment on that.