Printable View
That was conventional wisdom before the '08 election, but then the youth vote actually made a difference in electing Obama. :bored: The millennial vote matters for this election, too. Whether they vote in large numbers this time around is anyone's guess, because they don't appear to LOVE either candidate, much like the electorate at large. #nobodyQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Obama won by landslides. How did it make a difference?
Are you saying millennials didn't contribute to his "landslide" win? :confused:
As did everyone else who voted for him. They certainly didn't represent the margin of victory.
I have a distant memory of you predicting the '08 election in favor of McCain, mostly based on the notion that "young people don't vote in large enough numbers to matter as a voting bloc". That's right out of old poli-sci models that considered the "older" voter to be a more reliable voter. That "older" voter was also more likely to register as a (R) or (D), and vote straight ticket. The demographics are different, the electorate has changed, and voting tendancies aren't so easy to predict for the newest voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Older voters are more reliable, your own source said so.
Trump's latest campaign manager:
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...20071130081300
https://twitter.com/pewresearch/stat...14673846046720
Majority of Trumpistas don't think freedom of the press is important...
Well technically the only thing needed for democracy is voting... therefore the press isn't critical to it. Now perhaps the press is needed for a *well functioning* democracy but that wasn't the poll question. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That depends entirely on your definition of democracy. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a Venezuela or Russia.
Sure but Democracy has a definition, seems odd to change the definition and then expect people to use your definition when answering a poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As someone who teaches a course on democracy, I can assure you there are multiple definitions of democracy. The one defining it entirely in procedural terms (free and fair elections) is not the most popular one in either popular discourse or in political science.
You can't properly vote without being informed, free press is important for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Hence his well functioning caveat. Though that seems to be splitting hairs.
If it's not functioning it's not a democracy in anything other than name is it? And if it's essential to functioning properly it most definitely IS critical.
Apparently Trump hasn't quite discredited enough American institutions.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-donald-trump
Again 'properly' vote. I'd wager than MOST voters aren't very informed about the issues and we have a free press today. Are we not a "functioning" Democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I'm not arguing that a free press is important. I'm arguing that the poll is poorly worded. I'm arguing that people look at 'I dislike negative stories about my guy so I'm going to select the one that says they suck and we don't need them.'
Man he must sure be influential and inspiring to have trained agents suddenly back him. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It is a bit old school to define democracy in a way that mob rule is included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...te-for-clinton
Speaking of democracy... :o
http://www.wsj.com/articles/national...ion-1478309380
That media, always supporting Clinton. :o
Yeah, National Enquirer...right up there with New York Times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Nearly half the circulation of the NY Times. And it's far from the only tabloid completely in Trump's pocket this election cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Yes 1/2, but nowhere the gravitas.
Somehow I don't think Trumpistas care about gravitas.
Voter turnout is what actually matters. And just because Baby Boomers/seniors are the 'most reliable' voting group doesn't say anything about the *other* groups that can ultimately decide an election. In the '08 election many pundits and analysts (and the GOP itself) panned the youth vote, based on their previously low turnout rates, and they were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The same thing is true this time around: if millennials vote, they can outweigh the older voters. The US is winning the demographic game other countries are losing. We're fortunate to have millions of young people, and within that group are subgroups (like Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc.) that aren't represented in the older population. Many of them are new voters, so it's hard to ascribe the same 'reliability' we automatically give to boomers/seniors who have a long voting history.
What are you arguing about again? :confused:
No they weren't wrong in 08. What was youth turnout in 08?
The youth vote was higher than predicted, and the GOP strategists were wrong. I didn't write the stats on a post-it note :bored: but my recollection is that the GOP blamed their loss on high black voter turnout, and didn't make any correlation to the youth vote. Fast forward to the Democratic convention....and the surprise support for Bernie Sanders, mostly led by millennials.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Obama won in 08 due to a swing to him across the board as well as higher black turnout. The youth turnout was not significantly higher in comparison to overall turnout.
While Sanders is an utter irrelevance on a national scale. There is a major difference between the turnout needed to lose a primary and the turnout needed to win the Presidency.