Skip to main content

View Diary: Trippi Op-Ed in the WSJ: Yes. Yes. Yes! (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  young voters didn't vote for Democrats (3.75)
    They voted against Bush. Unless Bush is on the ballot again, then we don't get young voter support. Worse yet, if we continue as we have the young radicals of today will be voting straight-ticket Republican by the time their hair starts to grey. Look how we lost the baby-boomers in the 1980s.

    We need reform.

    •  Not necessarily so (none)
      Young voters don't go for the agenda and the agenda doesn't stop with Bush.

      Think their War on Terror ends with Bush?  Think the Conservative Revolition ends with Bush?

      I believe that Bush is trying to finish Reagan's revolution.  Reagan looks saner now by comparison.  He behaved responsibly on occasion. But, the GOP owes a debt to the Evangelicals and they aren't going to be happy until the revolution is complete.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

      by Cathy on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:23:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it isn't about agenda or issues for occassionals (none)
        Young voters are occassional voters and it isn't so much about the issues as the candidates. After four years in office, supporting Bush was considered socially unacceptable by young voters. Being against a George Bush was a good start for young voters, but don't take that to mean young voters are also against the Republican Party to the same degree. We need to a reason to support a Democratic Party vision.

        In 2008, if the GOP nominates somebody who isn't George W. Bush and we nominate another empty suit then how many young voters are going to show up?

        Hating 'the man' comes a lot easier than supporting a candidate. This year hating 'the man' helped our side, but if the GOP nominates a bold candidate and we continue business-as-usual then youth turnout could actually become a liability for a Democratic candidate. That is why Trippi subtracked the youth surge from his calculations.

    •  In 2000 (3.50)
      I was a youth voter, and this election I still am (but hanging on by a thread!). However, in '00, all my college friends and I (and my younger brother) voted Nader.  We were annoyed at the Dems-I know Gore's wife turned off a lot of young voters because of her pro-censorship stance, and of course, Lieberman made for the most pathetic "yes Cheney, we Dems agree with you on everything" vp candidate ever.

      In '04, we realized Bush IS a disaster, so instead of voting our conscience for a third party (and by this time, Nader's stubborness had helped to show his true colors), we voted for the Dems (and I do believe Dean's involvement helped energize younger voters). But as the poster above stated, it WAS a vote against Bush. Bush is a disaster-it was HIM that got out the disgusted youth voter, I would have voted for ANYONE the Dems nominated, this time. But in order to keep the youth vote, the Dems are going to have to take a real progressive stand on issues, and articulate their values much more clearly when running against someone who is NotBush.

    •  But how many... (none)
      homophobes didn't actually vote for shrub, but against gay marriage? You can use the same argument for this issue, and I'll bet the answer is a lot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site