Skip to main content

View Diary: An actual millennial’s opinion on our current political system. (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who are they going to vote for? (47+ / 0-)

    That's the problem I see today: Liberals literally have no one to vote for in most races. There are almost no primary challenges against establishment corporatist Democrats. And there are no viable liberal third parties. So there is this huge group of Americans now who are essentially disenfranchised in our democracy. They mostly just fade out of political involvement, and many become non-voters.

    One thing is for sure: The diarist is absolutely right that many young people feel that Democratic politicians take their votes for granted and do little or nothing in office to advance the interests of the younger generation -- most of whom are falling out of the middle class because of the hoarding of wealth by big corporations, the constant cutting of jobs and wages, and the obscenely high cost of higher education nowadays. The problem is, these young people may stop bothering to vote at all, since in most races there are no economic populist progressives on the ballot to vote for.

    The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

    by Eric Stetson on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 01:40:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I've tried finding someone to vote for (30+ / 0-)

      "The problem is, these young people may stop bothering to vote at all, since in most races there are no economic populist progressives on the ballot to vote for."

      this is a huge issue I see many people of my generation feel even when they earnestly want to be politically active. They look for someone to vote for or to do something and find their options so limited they kinda feel it doesn't matter.
      And heck even I feel it at times.

      •  Obviously Young People Did Not (4+ / 0-)

        show up in significant numbers in the recent special election in Florida.

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:38:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bernie Sanders appears to represent and (9+ / 0-)

        press for the aspirations of the many of us and the millenials of whom you write.  Elizabeth Warren.  Kristin Gillebrand.  And do send us some millenial candidates even though all the big money is working against you.

        Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

        by judyms9 on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 05:01:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  gillibrand? (19+ / 0-)

          How the hell is she in a list with Warren and Sanders?  

          She got more money from Goldman Sachs than any candidate other than Mitt Romney in the last election cycle.  

          As the diarist points out about democrats, she is an excellent example of someone who is socially leftist but who is a military hawk and big supporter of corporations.

        •  I am definitely not a millennial but I share your (25+ / 0-)

          sentiments.  Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the only people that represent my views and consistently fight for what I consider truly democratic values.  I think millennial's should run for office and vote for their own...don't wait your turn, create a movement and go with it.

          •  I think Jeff Merkley is quickly becoming that (9+ / 0-)

            kind of democrat, and that Tom Udall always has been. There are a few others too; it's important not to just dismiss the whole crew out of hand. There are some good people out there. But while I agree with the diarist (disclosure, not a millennial, but did just finish an econ/poli sci degree, and am familiar with their thinking generally) that the democrats don't represent the left very well, I also think the biggest reason that there isn't a vibrant left in this country is that too much of the left doesn't participate meaningfully in the political process. If the left voted as religiously as the right does in this country, we would be having a completely different conversation about this.

            So the question is: what comes first, the leadership or the movement?

            "There must be something beyond slaughter and barbarism to support the existence of mankind and we must all help search for it."

            by camlbacker on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:11:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Chicken or the egg problem. (14+ / 0-)

              As you said,

              the biggest reason that there isn't a vibrant left in this country is that too much of the left doesn't participate meaningfully in the political process.
              But the reason they don't participate is that there isn't a vibrant left on the ballot.

              It's a vicious cycle. Somehow somebody has to break that cycle. Millennials tried to do that by voting in droves for Obama in 2008, but obviously that didn't create a vibrant left because the candidate was not of the left (though most young people thought he was).

              The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

              by Eric Stetson on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:27:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For my part, I think the development of a meaning- (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hlsmlane, elwior, kyril, StrayCat, nirbama

                ful left will begin at the local level, as was the case with Sawant. Now it needs to happen 100 or 1000 more times across the country. That requires a really substantial investment of a lot of people in the long term. The right has been better for all of my political memory (say 35ish years) at taking the long view.

                I think it has always been a mistake on the part of democrats to put their hopes onto one charismatic leader (in the 90's it was Clinton, more recently Obama) at the expense of doing the legwork to build a really meaningful movement. As a result, the right has a much more meaningful influence on the Republican party than the left has on the Democratic party.

                Obama, for his part, was always an institutionalist and an incrementalist and has certainly governed like one in part because of lack of meaningful force from the left to do otherwise.

                So the egg was around long before anything remotely looking like a chicken came along AKA when the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The right knows this and does this, without relent. Too much of the left gives up when they don't get what they want. We need to force the leadership to give us what we want and be relentless in this pursuit. That's what will create meaningful change.

                "There must be something beyond slaughter and barbarism to support the existence of mankind and we must all help search for it."

                by camlbacker on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:52:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laconic Lib, LouisMartin

                The reason you don't see many liberals on the ballot is because they're attacked as vociferously by their own party as they are by Republicans.In all my years of experience,  ConservaDems hate liberals much more than Republican.

                That ssid, the area I live in has supported many good liberals like Dennis Kucinich, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Marcia Fudge, Sherrod Brown, etc.

                Perhaps liberal Dems have a harder time in areas where Dems practice machine politics, dirty tricks, etc.

                Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                by Betty Pinson on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 07:53:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I thought he was too. Guess I'm just an old fool. (0+ / 0-)

                Obama has done more to hurt the left than anyone. I keep trying to find reasons to support him, but I've just about run out. I have resorted to giving him credit for things that didn't happen for rather absurd 11-demensional chess bull-shit-type reasons. For example, Social Security cuts might be out of his official budget, but they are not off the table. A lot of people are calling that a victory, but it is only a marginal one. When Obama talks about cutting the bloat in the defense department instead of cutting social programs, then I might give him more credence, but at this point I don't really trust him.

                The PowerDems are not going  to show much of their hand before the midterms. They will want to see which way the wind blows. That is why it is important to support progressive Democrats. But I was already fooled into thinking that Obama would be progressive. So, what do you do? Can we sue Obama, because it was basically a bait and switch operation. I realize that Obama was just doing the regular politician's spiel of saying what the voters want to hear. I ran across Bill Clinton's Second Inaugural Address, and it sounded like a speech that Obama would have given, and then I realized that it is just a schitk for us rubes. I don't see how a person could make those statements and do something completely opposite. It's vial.

                I can better understand why people would vote Republican. At least you know they are lying sacks of shit, or maybe Republican voters are as deluded as I was and actually want to believe. Maybe most politicians are just self-serving lying sacks of shit, so don't vote. The only winners in politics seem to be the lying sacks of shit politicians, so no matter what the voter decides, a sack of shit will win.

                This site has helped me see that there is a difference between Democrats and why, but it also shows that there isn't much choice. I don't really see this site as promoting progressivism in a significant way and a candidate simply being a Democrat isn't enough for me any more.

                "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

                by politically indigo on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:02:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  One of the main reasons for the lack of a vibrant (8+ / 0-)

              Left in the US is that the Right set out to crush it more than a century ago, and has never let up. You can see it at the beginning of the union movement, and you can trace its roots much further back.

              In fact, you can see it in the accusations that Thomas Jefferson was a Jacobin atheist, whose first act as President would be to burn down all of the churches. The unholy alliance between the Religious Right and the corporations goes back that far, although they split over slavery for a while. Corporations opposed slavery as unfair competition, and then immediately turn on free Black labor as unfair competition after Emancipation took effect. The White Supremacist pro-slavery churches have had to back off gradually on overt racism, and even denounce it, but have doubled down on misogyny, bigotry, and science denial since. The 1% has treated them as Useful Idiots since the Southern Strategy took form in the 1960s.

              Long after the Jacobins became irrelevant under Napoleon, the Anarchists, Labor, the Communists, the Socialists, and now plain old Liberals have come in for successive rounds of demonization.

              If the current demographic trends hold, the pressure should mostly come off within ten years with the complete implosion of the Republicans. Very likely in time for the 2024 Presidential election, which in that case will be fought over very different ground than the next few cycles.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:57:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Former lobbyist Kristen Gillibrand?? (8+ / 0-)

          Lol here's a list of her corporate sponsors:

          J.P. Morgan Chase - $145,000
          Morgan Stanley - $141,525
          Goldman Sachs - $124,150
          Blackstone Group - $111,100
          Deutsche Bank AG - $86,605
          Comcast Cable - $75,375
          Citigroup - $72,000

          •  Commie... Nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mookins

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 02:25:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Corporate sponsors or (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VelvetElvis, Lying eyes, LouisMartin

            employees of those companies who contributed to her campaign?

            It's a HUGE difference.

            Corporations can't give directly to candidates. Employees of corporations can, and do.

            Gillibrand is from NEW YORK. Funny, I seem to remember there are a hell of of a lot of financial firms in NY. A lot of her constituents probably work for them. And apparently they contributed to the campaign of the person they probably voted for.

            I don't think that's strange at all.

            •  Yes - I'm sure it was the lower level (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jim P, Laconic Lib, StrayCat, pyegar

              employees who donated as opposed to those deep-pocketed "Executives".

              Cause.. ya know.. those lower level employees have massive amounts of cash to throw around in the political arena.

              The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

              by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:17:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  A little more info: (11+ / 0-)

              From her Wikipedia entry:

              In 1991, Gillibrand joined the Manhattan-based law office of Davis Polk & Wardwell as an associate.[4] In 1992, she took a leave from Davis Polk to serve as a law clerk to Judge Roger Miner on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Albany.[6][14]

              Gillibrand's tenure at Davis Polk is best known for her work as a defense attorney for Tobacco company Philip Morris during major litigation, including both civil lawsuits and U.S. Justice Department criminal and civil racketeering probes.[15] She became a senior associate while working on Philip Morris litigation.[16]

              In 2001, Gillibrand became a partner in the Manhattan office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where a client was the Philip Morris parent company Altria Group. In 2002 she informed Boies of interest in running for office and was allowed to transfer to the firm's Albany office. She left Boies in 2005 to begin her 2006 campaign for Congress.[6][15]

              A typical rising Democratic Power Broker.

              She also happens to have joined the Blue Dog Coalition.

              Not exactly an economic progressive by any stretch of the imagination.  Then again, she doesn't have to be.  Why would she?  She'll get the votes anyway and the wealthy, unlike the typical D "base", actually does give a shit who advances their economic interests.

              The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

              by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:23:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Quick note on "Employee" contributions: (10+ / 0-)

            Two of the companies I have worked for in the past.. would send out emails from the CEO / Executives, ginning up support for certain candidates and (conveniently) providing a form / way we could donate.

            It was communicated that if didn't win, it would be bad for the company - and all of us.

            I actually had my C level manager come to me several times to make sure I understood the gravity of the situation, and, if I and my direct reports had donated.

            No bullshit.

            That's how corporations get employees to "donate".  

            Then there's the Executives who "Donate" and then oddly enough their bonus pool gets increased to cover any donations made.  Of course I'm sure that's a coincidence.

            When Executives "donate" - trust me - they aren't out any $$ personally.  It gets more than made up via the MICP (Management Incentive Compensation Plan), Executive Bonus Pool, or stock options.

            The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

            by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  All located in her state. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "Never let up. Crush bigotry and greed."

            by LouisMartin on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 03:49:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •   DerKommissar says (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Betty Pinson, Laconic Lib, StrayCat
        They look for someone to vote for or to do something and find their options so limited they kinda feel it doesn't matter.
        And heck even I feel it at times.
        I feel we can do something about this here and now , say your local dem reps is to conservative for your crowd , if we get enough people to sign onto a petition laying out

        " this is why we are not voting for you , or sending you money"

        Then that group becomes power players , this is a part of DEMOCRACY that the public has not taken advantage of in America , but it has also only become available in the information / communication age

        Here is a good start imo

        Working Family Party

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 04:38:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If Socialists begin to win elections (20+ / 0-)

      and it is evident that Millenial votes got them there, you may expect Democratic candidates to change their Centrist economic positions REALLY very quickly.

      I can't imagine a better way to give Democratic politicians the message that America is NOT economically "centrist".

    •  You can't sit on your butt (16+ / 0-)

      and wait for your savior to stand for office.   You need to go to the meetings.  You need to run for office.  Volunteer for the candidate of your choice.  Find someone you like, and talk them into running.  Then campaign and vote for them.

      Politics is a contact sport.  Winners get to make the rules for the next round.

      Joy shared is doubled. Pain shared is halved. Spider Robinson

      by nolagrl on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 04:59:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but you can't run for office without money. (8+ / 0-)

        And it's hard to raise money from a generation that has a high unemployment rate, is deep in debt for student loans, and falling out of the middle class.

        Technically, you can run for office without much money, but it would have to be a completely different kind of campaign based almost entirely on free social media rather than paid advertising. Perhaps the Millennial generation will be the pioneers of such a model. Let's hope so.

        The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

        by Eric Stetson on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:31:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  REALLY tough to do that when you're (8+ / 0-)

        trying to figure out, now that you're twenty-something, how to afford:

        - Food
        - Shelter
        - Health care
        - A future

        In our marketplace. I'm not even a millenial but these trends were already in place for many ways, only not nearly as bad, for X-ers.

        They tell you to go to college. But it's increasingly damned tough to afford. They tell you to get through "somehow." Well, you work full time, study full time, and take out loans to make up the difference. You graduate and you find that you can't get a better job or that the "better" job that you can, with many more responsibilities and much worse work-life balance, pays not much more than the "student job" you worked as you were busy trying to graduate, and that it isn't a safe bet, long-term.

        Now they tell you to scrimp and save and work hard and build a career on your meager income while you try to support yourself and pay off your student loans. You try to do that. You wind your way through your twenties working long hours and saving. But you still can't afford a house. And how you're pushing thirty and you don't have a life, because all you're doing is working and paying, paying and working, and not managing to save much.

        And so on.

        Millenials have it even worse—the wages and support are even lower, the job market prospects even dimmer.

        WTF?

        And then people tell them to go out and stand for office. With what? Who's going to pay for them while they do this? I don't mean eventually, I mean on the first Monday, and on the second Monday, and so on, when rent is coming due and a stomach has to be filled? They have to go to work. They're barely making it as it is.

        People often accuse X-ers and millenials of being lazy or of being entitled. But we look back at the generations before us and we see and hear:

        - Love stories
        - Stories about youth and travel
        - Jobs with benefits
        - Tales about scrimping and saving that lead to nesteggs
        - Families started, houses purchased
        - Life histories that sound like life histories

        Yes, all of these things were modest, but they were there.

        We do the same things (scrimp, save, take out loans to make life better, act responsibly, try to make life as good as we can) and we don't come out with love stories, families, a modest house, and a modest nestegg at the other end.

        Already for the X-ers, we end up in our forties with:

        - Tremendous work experience
        - Increasingly unmarketable age that will push us out of work
        - No nestegg
        - No house
        - In many cases, no family (could never afford the time or the money to make it happen)
        - Nobody and nothing
        - But wage slavery and bills due

        Get politically involved? This is not CT, there has been a plot for two centuries to try to ensure that eventually, anyone whose interests did not lie with making capital ever more wealthy would not be able to do anything to affect the political system. They would be too hamstrung, caught between survival and wage slavery, to have a free moment to engage in politics or social life without essentially sacrificing themselves entirely as viable human beings.

        A big, huge description of this plot was even produced, one that analyzed it in detail. It was written by Karl Marx.

        Run for office?

        God, that's like "Get a job!"

        -9.63, 0.00
        "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

        by nobody at all on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:25:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Contract slavery is as effective, and more (0+ / 0-)

          inexpensive than chattel slavery, as Comcast and Verizon have demonstrated.  They don't have to fed and clothe the new slaves.

          Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

          by StrayCat on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 02:04:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Libertarians. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Stetson, Vericima, Pluto, Moravan

      I'm 32 a lot of people my age voted for Gary johnson. They don't pay attention to most stuff republicans and democrats do anymore which is bad. Not all of them but a lot of them.

      "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

      by freakofsociety on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, you are correct. (7+ / 0-)

        Libertarianism has acquired the image of "cool and anti-establishment." I think that's mainly because there's not much of a viable leftist movement in this country.

        If Bernie Sanders runs for president, I suspect he'll be the cool candidate for Millennials to vote for, taking most of the cool anti-establishment vote away from the Libertarians. He even has that "quirky old guy with radical principles" thing going on, just like Ron Paul did.

        The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

        by Eric Stetson on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:34:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sanders isn't an unprincipled liar and cheat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          like Paul père and fils, and our political system is not set up to handle such a candidate. Having him represent Vermont while it goes for Single Payer is a better contribution.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 12:06:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This. I'm also a millennial, and I cannot attest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, nirbama

        to the diarist's claim that millennials are economically left.

        I see a lot of cynicism and indifference with the two major parties, but not with outcome of a lurch left, bypassing Dems en route. I see a lot of them staying put, right where they are - socially liberal but economically 'libertarian', or rather opposed and/or ignorant to true leftist economics, with the result of going to the logical successor of the GOP - American Libertarians.

        I'll offer one explanation why a lot of my peers are not persuaded by left economic policies: they don't know any better. These are children of the greed-is-good 80s, whose formative years took place in the  deregulatory 90s, and have now entered a hyper-competitive work force with charter schools, union-bashing, 401Ks, private health insurance, on and on. They're decades away from seeing the benefits of social security and Medicaid. And Europe is a place to get corked drinking beer out of boots, rather than a case study in social justice.

        We haven't had a liberal economic system in decades, and yet we still get the blame for a struggling economy. With little experience and so much cynicism and blame, I can't - and don't - see how my peers in vast numbers move toward a socialist party to the left of Dems.  

        Just my two cents and personal experience.

        •  If the Libertarians have any say, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Moravan

          the millennials will never see Social Security.

          They're decades away from seeing the benefits of social security and Medicaid.

          "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

          by politically indigo on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:17:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a matter of WHO to vote for. (7+ / 0-)

        It's about WHAT to vote for.

        The USians have floundered for decades voting for "personalities" instead of a clear "vision" of an agenda that can and will be executed by anyone in the Party as a first priority.

        But the way the political kabuki "sports teams" work -- there  is nothing for Millennials to vote for. Do Democrats campaign on:

        ~State sponsored college education?

        ~State subsidized wages to get them started in their chose profession?

        ~Debt forgiveness of the usurious and crippling student loan program?

        ~Pedal to the metal environmental reform to save their lives in the future?

        There is absolutely NOTHING for millennials in the for-profit Democratic Party Platform.

    •  This all our own fault (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      18038

      Why are there no challengers to the DINO's and Corpra-Dems?  Simple, we don't run against them.  There should never ever be a candidate that runs unopposed in either a primary or a general election, even the best need to earn their spot every time it shouldn't be a gimmie.

      And while we are on the topic why do why want this country to be a monarchy?  Time and time again we as a party and a country feel the need to elect people simply because of their names not for the qualifications or the content of their character.

      •  I often see several Democrats on the ballot (0+ / 0-)

        running in each of the various races, but the incumbent or the party anointed is the candidate that usually wins. The other candidates get little exposure because they do not have the backing to air political ads. Most people don't look beyond that. They want a winner and somebody who appears to have money, because to most Americans money equals power rather than what it should: that the politicians are beholden to whomever gave them the bulk of their money. An that is more often than not the average voter.

        "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

        by politically indigo on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:36:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who are they going to vote for? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, nirbama

      The person who isn't Mitt Romney or Rand Paul.

      We live in the real world. If you don't vote, you're handing a vote to whoever the Republican candidate is.

      If you're ok with a candidate who wants forced transvaginal ultrasounds, increased pollution, no LGBT rights, guns everywhere etc then fine, don't vote.

      Because even the worst Dem is generally better than the best Republican, and even the worst Dem at least allows us to maintain the Senate which is much better than if Republicans controlled it.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 12:58:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not an Aggressive Vision of a progressive (6+ / 0-)

        …future.

        That is pure defensiveness and fear.

      •  Philly Jeff - Your comment exemplies the problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy, Laconic Lib

        with the "What are you going to do, vote Republican?" approach.
           Most people, including women, aren't contemplating getting an abortion anytime soon. So although transvaginal ultrasounds are outrageous, are you afraid of that enough to make that the basis of your vote?
           LGBT rights? Most people are in favor of those but LGBT issues affect a very small percentage of the population, and the LGBT issue du jour - same sex marriage - is getting decided in the courts anyway.
           Gun control? That ain't happening whether the Dems sweep or not.
            So, you're down to "increased pollution." But historically, environmental issues haven't driven elections.
            In order to take advantage of the demographic changes, the Dems have to have a coherent POSITIVE program. But when the national Dems have an "all of the above" energy/environmental policy and have demonstrated a willingness to buy into the "cut entitlements" quackery,
        where is the motivation to vote for them?
           The Republican boogyman theme might win the occasional Presidential election, it isn't enough to win state and local races. That's why the Republicans are winning state legislatures and governorships.

      •  This is the classic good cop / bad cop strategy (5+ / 0-)

        " I may sell you down the river, but that other guy will sell you down the river and also steal your wallet"
        How many more times does this have to fail before the Democrats realize it's not a very strong motivator?
        The Democrats have given up on offering a large vision for governance.
        Does anyone expect the president for example, to become a full throated advocate for the CPC budget?
        "The other guy is worse" is a lousy motivator, always has been, always will be, but we continue to act surprised when the Democratic turnout is weak.

      •  I'm not buying this argument anymore, but I'm (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skyye

        getting old enough where more of the future is behind me than I have left, so I'm not as afraid of trying to change things as I used to be. I can see how the people in power use this type of fear to maintain the status quo.

        "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

        by politically indigo on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:41:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Therein lies the rub (0+ / 0-)

      Millennials will vote--if you give them someone to vote for. They will not vote for "austerity-lite" or "bailouts for Wall Street; sellouts for Main Street," or especially not "Look forward, not backward."

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 07:13:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site