Here's a nice succinct report on curiosities in the election, specifically in South Dakota and Arkansas, as seen from Canada:

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/s...8-DF978BCD4C85

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

This means representatives of 3 generations are at odds for the leadership: Pelosi (c. 61 years old), Kaptur, and Howard Ford of Tennessee (c. 30 years old). Things are becoming interesting!

Keep a close on on Harold Ford, I think we're looking at an up-and-coming 'player' in the Democratic Party.

Yeah, this could be the type of Xer who holds a lot of power in the next High. He does bear watching. He's wrong for 4T leadership, though, and not just because he's a Nomad.

I don't really know where to post this, I guess this thread is as good as any.

One of the main problems that I've always had with S&H and the Gen X descriptions and definitions is this. I was a punk/death rocker back in the 80's. Although I would agree that S&H pegged me pretty throughly. I always felt that the majority of the people around me were not like me.
I wasn't "normal". ( This is hard to put into words because these exact things I am saying are all part of the Gen X genre, but, please bear with me.)My peers called me "freak", " wierd"," strange" they didn't "get me". I was alienated not from society, but, from my own peers. The people that were supposed to understand me, didn't. I was well aware that I was a sub-class of the general population. It seemed to me reading the book, that the whole of Gen X was catagorized by a relative few.

I wonder if any of the other posters here felt that same way.

I remember watching a police show as a young girl. ( and why I remember this is beyond me) I think it was Dragnet. There was a young
20ish lady working for the police she was clean cut and pretty, much like,
Susan Dey of the Partridge Family. Someone in the police dept. made a
derogatory remark about the hippies she looked at the person and
said, "I used to be one of them". In retrospect, one could say that not all of the Boomers were
'Freelove flower children' type people. I have also seen old newspaper articles where some young people were "protesting the protests".
Certainly there were the Marcia and Jane Brady's in the world.

So this leads me to something that's been rolling around in my head.
And it has to do with what Marc's fear's are. Namely, the Boomers will be
in full control as we are in the midst of the 4T ( Is that right Marc?)
But, the thing is these Boomers, they don't have to be the liberal left do they? Just because a generation is defined by the most vocal, that doesn't
necessitate that the leaders be the left. It would be simply the age at which the crisis and the societal leaders match up.

After all, both Bush and Clinton are Boomers aren't they? Clinton embodies the S&H framework of a typical Boomer. Bush is also a Boomer
but, entirely unlike Clinton. So why would a Boomer lead Senate be necessarily a bad thing for us Conservatives out here?

Marc, HopefulCynic? any thoughts?

Originally Posted by justmom

I don't really know where to post this, I guess this thread is as good as any.

So this leads me to something that's been rolling around in my head.
And it has to do with what Marc's fear's are. Namely, the Boomers will be
in full control as we are in the midst of the 4T ( Is that right Marc?)
But, the thing is these Boomers, they don't have to be the liberal left do they? Just because a generation is defined by the most vocal, that doesn't
necessitate that the leaders be the left. It would be simply the age at which the crisis and the societal leaders match up.

After all, both Bush and Clinton are Boomers aren't they? Clinton embodies the S&H framework of a typical Boomer. Bush is also a Boomer
but, entirely unlike Clinton. So why would a Boomer lead Senate be necessarily a bad thing for us Conservatives out here?

Marc, HopefulCynic? any thoughts?

Boomers come in a variety of political modes. For example, on our own 4T forum, we have two 1956 cohorts -- Marc Lamb and Brian Rush -- coming at near polar opposites.

I think that last example illustrates why people are nervous about Boomers in Charge. Boomers are not particularly accommodating; they tend to have strongly held views and espouse them pretty passionately. Thus, large numbers of people (from their own gen and from other gens) will disagree with a Boomer leader just as intensely. You wouldn't get that level of intensity from people like Dukakis and Lugar, to name two prominent Silents.

By the way, what generation is the House Speaker, Dennis Hastert? My guess is Silent? He doesn't attract nearly the fire and flak that Newt Gingrich, for better or for worse, attracted. Something about those Boomer politicians (Clinton, Gingrich, to name two) that causes passions and tempers to flare.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

By the way, what generation is the House Speaker, Dennis Hastert? My guess is Silent? He doesn't attract nearly the fire and flak that Newt Gingrich, for better or for worse, attracted. Something about those Boomer politicians (Clinton, Gingrich, to name two) that causes passions and tempers to flare.

For some reason, I was thinking that Gingrich was a Silent, '39, '40, or '41, somewhere in there. However I checked a list of birthdays I downloaded and it shows the following:

17-Jun-1943 Newt Gingrich

I could have sworn Gingrich was a born somewhere in the 1939-1941 range, but apparently not. As for Hastert:

02-Jan-1942 Dennis Hastert

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by justmom

I don't really know where to post this, I guess this thread is as good as any.

So this leads me to something that's been rolling around in my head.
And it has to do with what Marc's fear's are. Namely, the Boomers will be
in full control as we are in the midst of the 4T ( Is that right Marc?)
But, the thing is these Boomers, they don't have to be the liberal left do they? Just because a generation is defined by the most vocal, that doesn't
necessitate that the leaders be the left. It would be simply the age at which the crisis and the societal leaders match up.

After all, both Bush and Clinton are Boomers aren't they? Clinton embodies the S&H framework of a typical Boomer. Bush is also a Boomer
but, entirely unlike Clinton. So why would a Boomer lead Senate be necessarily a bad thing for us Conservatives out here?

Marc, HopefulCynic? any thoughts?

Boomers come in a variety of political modes. For example, on our own 4T forum, we have two 1956 cohorts -- Marc Lamb and Brian Rush -- coming at near polar opposites.

I think that last example illustrates why people are nervous about Boomers in Charge. Boomers are not particularly accommodating; they tend to have strongly held views and espouse them pretty passionately. Thus, large numbers of people (from their own gen and from other gens) will disagree with a Boomer leader just as intensely. You wouldn't get that level of intensity from people like Dukakis and Lugar, to name two prominent Silents.

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Huh? As I clearly indicated in the post, that was someone else's compilation of data. The only pollster with a proven record I trust is Zogby (as I have pointed out here countless times) and it is not clear to me that all those polls cited on that page were conducted by Zogby. However I certainly do not believe your Pioneer Press poll. But that is not the point. I simply posted somebody else's compilation, for the sake of it being a compilation, given that it contained Zogby data.

Why don't you believe the Pioneer Press poll? It certainly turned out to be a lot closer than the Star Tribune poll, which was NOT a Zogby poll, BTW. Rather, it was conducted by the newspaper independently.

[quote="AlexMnWi"]Why don't you believe the Pioneer Press poll?

Because Zogby is the only one with a proven track record. Zogby showed Mondale up by 5 or 7 or something when you first posted that Pioneer Press poll a week before the election. The establishment media polls have been skewed toward Bush since the beginng of the 2000 campaign in precisely the same way that they were continuously skewed toward the Democrats over the three decades previous. The establishment polls were again skewed toward the Republicans in 2002. They are and always have been full of sh*t and, as you correctly pointed out, even Peter Jennings has taken to quoting Zogby instead of his own company's polls. Zogby ultimately called Mondale by 3 and I frankly question all these election results given the nationwide reports of improperly tabulating electronic voting machines. We only know about the improper tabulations which were spotted. Common sense suggests that there were a whole lot more erroneous tabulations which were never detected. And we do not have any sort of paper trail to even find out.

It certainly turned out to be a lot closer than the Star Tribune poll, which was NOT a Zogby poll, BTW. Rather, it was conducted by the newspaper independently.

Again, when the election results can be 100% verified with paper trails (as common sense dictates in the interest of honest elections), let's talk about who won or lost and which pollsters were on or off.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Is this a 4T election? Certainly seems like one.

Even though the turnout was low, it was still higher than the 1998 mid-term elections. ... The Democrats who won huge victories over their Republican counterparts showed courage and conviction. The low Democratic turnout was due to the fact that most candidates assumed that Americans were still in a 3T mood.

I don't really see much that was 4T about the election other than the party of the president gaining seats (and even then, some people want to question the gain because of redistricting and perhaps some other stuff). Sure, Democrats could gain support and victories when they took a stand and actually had a platform instead of holding a blank slate of paper in front of them. But many of those who won did so on culture war issues. Several candidates in California were dealing with "a woman's right to choose" as their favorite campaign sound bite and Davis smeared Bill Simon (and vice versa) over abortion. Smear ads on gun control were also heard throughout the state, but still didn't seem to be popular as Democratic candidates pointing out the women's right to choose yadda-yadda-yadda. Also a lotta focus on education. And this was in a state where almost all the wins were Democrat too. Compare that to the states like, oh say, Texas, where the Democrats ran on practically nothing. It frankly didn't seem to matter much what the issues you pressed were, as long as you campaigned on issues at all. That's more 3T, not a 4T concern and selectiveness. Then there was the Democrat from Marc's district ('nough said). Strauss & Howe say in a 4T voters won't be won over by Culture War issues, even if they're offered them. The Daily Show's take on the "San Francisco liberal" seemed to say it all. "Were still in a 3T mood"? Well I'm certainly still in a 3T mood, but I'm not even a Democrat, so I suppose I (and Xers at large, with low Democratic percentages) wouldn't be able to help them any.

Even while most Democrats running assumed the same pre-911 mood, the results show otherwise.

Or do they show that the rest of us are so 3T, we don't even want to vote?

The GOP, capitalizing on a new demand for action, has won.

A demand for "action in war", and not much else. They didn't really have too many issues by and large either, except for fighting terrorism and whether to spread that fight to Iraq. What we had a demand for was substance and a platform, and there's nothing new about that. What IS new is that the parties (and especially the Democrats) weren't so short on it in previous years, like say, 1998, or 1996. Now there are too many wimps saying, "Don't question the Republicans" and "If we fall out of lock-step by disrespecting Dubya and therefore all of the 9/11 victims, we'll lose all our voters". In that way, the Democrats were actually more 4T than the Republicans, who at least tried to make it contentious. Now, being loud on abortion, that's what I call "assum[ing] the same 9-11 mood".
Well, the voters got a choice between Republican and someone who sounds, looks, acts, thinks, smells and sleeps like a Republican and the false Republicans lost. It is these wimps who were the most consistently thrown out.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Is this a 4T election? Certainly seems like one.

Even though the turnout was low, it was still higher than the 1998 mid-term elections. ... The Democrats who won huge victories over their Republican counterparts showed courage and conviction. The low Democratic turnout was due to the fact that most candidates assumed that Americans were still in a 3T mood.

I don't really see much that was 4T about the election other than the party of the president gaining seats (and even then, some people want to question the gain because of redistricting and perhaps some other stuff). Sure, Democrats could gain support and victories when they took a stand and actually had a platform instead of holding a blank slate of paper in front of them. But many of those who won did so on culture war issues. Several candidates in California were dealing with "a woman's right to choose" as their favorite campaign sound bite and Davis smeared Bill Simon (and vice versa) over abortion. Smear ads on gun control were also heard throughout the state, but still didn't seem to be popular as Democratic candidates pointing out the women's right to choose yadda-yadda-yadda. Also a lotta focus on education. And this was in a state where almost all the wins were Democrat too. Compare that to the states like, oh say, Texas, where the Democrats ran on practically nothing. It frankly didn't seem to matter much what the issues you pressed were, as long as you campaigned on issues at all. That's more 3T, not a 4T concern and selectiveness. Then there was the Democrat from Marc's district ('nough said). Strauss & Howe say in a 4T voters won't be won over by Culture War issues, even if they're offered them. The Daily Show's take on the "San Francisco liberal" seemed to say it all. "Were still in a 3T mood"? Well I'm certainly still in a 3T mood, but I'm not even a Democrat, so I suppose I (and Xers at large, with low Democratic percentages) wouldn't be able to help them any.

Even while most Democrats running assumed the same pre-911 mood, the results show otherwise.

Or do they show that the rest of us are so 3T, we don't even want to vote?

The GOP, capitalizing on a new demand for action, has won.

A demand for "action in war", and not much else. They didn't really have too many issues by and large either, except for fighting terrorism and whether to spread that fight to Iraq. What we had a demand for was substance and a platform, and there's nothing new about that. What IS new is that the parties (and especially the Democrats) weren't so short on it in previous years, like say, 1998, or 1996. Now there are too many wimps saying, "Don't question the Republicans" and "If we fall out of lock-step by disrespecting Dubya and therefore all of the 9/11 victims, we'll lose all our voters". In that way, the Democrats were actually more 4T than the Republicans, who at least tried to make it contentious. Now, being loud on abortion, that's what I call "assum[ing] the same 9-11 mood".
Well, the voters got a choice between Republican and someone who sounds, looks, acts, thinks, smells and sleeps like a Republican and the false Republicans lost. It is these wimps who were the most consistently thrown out.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Is this a 4T election? Certainly seems like one.

Even though the turnout was low, it was still higher than the 1998 mid-term elections. ... The Democrats who won huge victories over their Republican counterparts showed courage and conviction. The low Democratic turnout was due to the fact that most candidates assumed that Americans were still in a 3T mood.

I don't really see much that was 4T about the election other than the party of the president gaining seats (and even then, some people want to question the gain because of redistricting and perhaps some other stuff). Sure, Democrats could gain support and victories when they took a stand and actually had a platform instead of holding a blank slate of paper in front of them. But many of those who won did so on culture war issues. Several candidates in California were dealing with "a woman's right to choose" as their favorite campaign sound bite and Davis smeared Bill Simon (and vice versa) over abortion. Smear ads on gun control were also heard throughout the state, but still didn't seem to be popular as Democratic candidates pointing out the women's right to choose yadda-yadda-yadda. Also a lotta focus on education. And this was in a state where almost all the wins were Democrat too. Compare that to the states like, oh say, Texas, where the Democrats ran on practically nothing. It frankly didn't seem to matter much what the issues you pressed were, as long as you campaigned on issues at all. That's more 3T, not a 4T concern and selectiveness. Then there was the Democrat from Marc's district ('nough said). Strauss & Howe say in a 4T voters won't be won over by Culture War issues, even if they're offered them. The Daily Show's take on the "San Francisco liberal" seemed to say it all. "Were still in a 3T mood"? Well I'm certainly still in a 3T mood, but I'm not even a Democrat, so I suppose I (and Xers at large, with low Democratic percentages) wouldn't be able to help them any.

Even while most Democrats running assumed the same pre-911 mood, the results show otherwise.

Or do they show that the rest of us are so 3T, we don't even want to vote?

The GOP, capitalizing on a new demand for action, has won.

A demand for "action in war", and not much else. They didn't really have too many issues by and large either, except for fighting terrorism and whether to spread that fight to Iraq. What we had a demand for was substance and a platform, and there's nothing new about that. What IS new is that the parties (and especially the Democrats) weren't so short on it in previous years, like say, 1998, or 1996. Now there are too many wimps saying, "Don't question the Republicans" and "If we fall out of lock-step by disrespecting Dubya and therefore all of the 9/11 victims, we'll lose all our voters". In that way, the Democrats were actually more 4T than the Republicans, who at least tried to make it contentious. Now, being loud on abortion, that's what I call "assum[ing] the same 9-11 mood".
Well, the voters got a choice between Republican and someone who sounds, looks, acts, thinks, smells and sleeps like a Republican and the false Republicans lost. It is these wimps who were the most consistently thrown out.

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

There is now another person challenging Pelosi for the Minority Leadership in the House: 10-term Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, a Boomer c. 53 years old, says she does not want the far-left part of the Democrats to swing things away from the mainstream. She offers ideas like a national high-speed rail system to invigorate the economy, alleviate gridlock in large cities, and lessen dependence on foreign/Arab oil. She is also a long-time opponent of NAFTA.

This means representatives of 3 generations are at odds for the leadership: Pelosi (c. 61 years old), Kaptur, and Howard Ford of Tennessee (c. 30 years old). Things are becoming interesting!

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

There is now another person challenging Pelosi for the Minority Leadership in the House: 10-term Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, a Boomer c. 53 years old, says she does not want the far-left part of the Democrats to swing things away from the mainstream. She offers ideas like a national high-speed rail system to invigorate the economy, alleviate gridlock in large cities, and lessen dependence on foreign/Arab oil. She is also a long-time opponent of NAFTA.

This means representatives of 3 generations are at odds for the leadership: Pelosi (c. 61 years old), Kaptur, and Howard Ford of Tennessee (c. 30 years old). Things are becoming interesting!

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

There is now another person challenging Pelosi for the Minority Leadership in the House: 10-term Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, a Boomer c. 53 years old, says she does not want the far-left part of the Democrats to swing things away from the mainstream. She offers ideas like a national high-speed rail system to invigorate the economy, alleviate gridlock in large cities, and lessen dependence on foreign/Arab oil. She is also a long-time opponent of NAFTA.

This means representatives of 3 generations are at odds for the leadership: Pelosi (c. 61 years old), Kaptur, and Howard Ford of Tennessee (c. 30 years old). Things are becoming interesting!

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Doesn't that depend on where you live in the U.S. HC?
New Yorkers use the subway.
Chicago uses the Elevated Railroad.
San Fransisco's public transportation ROCKS.

We don't use public transport in Southern CA. as much because,
the city wasn't planned for it, and it's so sprawling the P.T. doesn't
get you where you want to go.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Doesn't that depend on where you live in the U.S. HC?
New Yorkers use the subway.
Chicago uses the Elevated Railroad.
San Fransisco's public transportation ROCKS.

We don't use public transport in Southern CA. as much because,
the city wasn't planned for it, and it's so sprawling the P.T. doesn't
get you where you want to go.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

A national high-speed railway system! Now THAT is an idea I could get behind!!! It would be a total blast to design, and would probably take me the rest of the way to retirement. Alas, I suppose the planning phases will have to wait until at least mid-Crisis, around the year 2011, as society begins laying the groundwork for a new golden era (we hope). But I'll still be young enough to participate in it. Wow!

Unfortunately, the real problem would be convincing anyone to use it once it was built. Americans don't have a record of using mass transit as long as any other option is available.

Doesn't that depend on where you live in the U.S. HC?
New Yorkers use the subway.
Chicago uses the Elevated Railroad.
San Fransisco's public transportation ROCKS.

We don't use public transport in Southern CA. as much because,
the city wasn't planned for it, and it's so sprawling the P.T. doesn't
get you where you want to go.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by justmom

But, my point is the consensus that happens within the 4T. The polar opposites wont be in play. And just because they are Boomers, doesn't mean they are automatically Left.

Actually, historically consensus in the 4T is something of the exception. Of the last six Crisis periods, 4 were marked by internal conflict, if you count the Revolutionary War as 'internal' (it started as a civil war). Only the Glorious Revolution and the Depression/WW II were marked by internal societal consensus.

OH. :-?