In 2000 and 2004 youth turnout was 17% of the overall vote. In 2008 it was 18%. Just one point higher.
Printable View
In 2000 and 2004 youth turnout was 17% of the overall vote. In 2008 it was 18%. Just one point higher.
The youth vote was higher than expected, but it couldn't be a 'reliable trend' yet -- not enough history. The Sanders vote wasn't an anomaly, either.
Everything I'm saying is don't underestimate the youth vote. You can't counter that by saying the youth vote doesn't matter as much as the older vote, no matter how you phrase it, it's still wrong.
I didn't say it doesn't matter. I never said that, every vote matters.
What I said is that it remains - and will for many years to come - a smaller proportion of the active vote than that of older generations.
http://i.imgur.com/V9BQjkD.jpg
If Trump has done anything, its that he is a beacon for the ignorant, racist, sexist, FYGM crowd to flock to. Thats given a good bit of the rest of us an eye opener for how much work our society still has ahead of us.
That image became very popular with my black facebook friends over the past weekend.
Previously On America
Americans must choose between orange-stained-reality-TV-sexual-predator-fraudster-conman-come-low-rent-Hitler-and-possible-agent-of-a-hostile-foreign-power or an experienced, capable woman who they've decided collectively to hate for no reason.
And now the conclusion!
Mussolini, not Hitler. But otherwise concur.
Eh more like...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Americans must choose between orange-stained-reality-TV-egotistical-narcissist-isolationist who talks out of his ass or an experienced, crooked, corrupt globalist who can't be trusted on national security and will say anything to get elected.
Not great choices either way honestly. Supreme Court picks by Trump are one of the few reasons I hope he wins (still not voting for the clown). Clinton's blatant corruption irks me to no end. More than likely (if she gets 8 years) we'll see the debt double again. Sigh.
Your use of the term globalist is telling.
Its true isn't it? I'm a proponent of free trade but that's about it. I'm not in favor of open borders. I'm not in favor of the tendency of liberals to support super state solutions to problems. I'm a bigger fan of NATO than Trump is but apart from military alliances and free trade I don't want to further integrate with socialist cesspools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's a word that's used mostly in the right-wing nutjob media.
Which socialist cesspools does Clinton want to integrate with? And since you're equating Hillary with Bill, which socialist cesspools did he integrate with? Canada?
And here's a final word from your idol, Coulter: https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/statu...33821501460480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's something we're going to see from both sides. Bush Jr. killed the party's fiscal conservative wing because he recognized the populist value of spending (regardless of the platitudes populists mouth about the debt) and those still in the GOP recognize it. A populist demagogue like Trump certainly isn't going to buck that trend, no matter what his own platitudes are (and indeed, while he mouths lots of them his proposed defiicit increases are a fair margin higher than Clinton's) You can't even make the argument that as a businessman he recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility because he's been really fiscally irresponsible AS a businessman, something he's just continuing with his political proposals.
Isolationists and Globalist are opposite ends of the spectrum. Each can be used as a dismissive term. There are a number of things Hillary would likely support:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
1. Joining and adhering to Global CO2 emission games.
2. Pretending the non-security council UN matters.
3. Accepting more refugees from countries that dislike us
4. Not aggressively championing American companies under fire from BS in other parts in the world
5. Continuing to not defend the border
6. Likely pushing from some sort of amnesty and or tacit acceptance and support for sanctuary cities
All of these positions apply to the globalist mindset. She'll also support trade partnerships (like the TPP) which I actually think are healthy but all the rest is crap.
What did Hitler ever do to you, huh buddy? :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Oh
Oh
Damn
What is it with lunatics that they stick together. Trump from this side of the pond has the Farage and Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) votes.
Take a look at @Piers_Corbyn's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn/sta...154604545?s=09
Oh, satanists? :haha:
I think it would be hilarious if Clinton won Texas. If enough Republicans go Johnson and enough Hispanics turn out its possible there could be a perfect storm there. Unlikely though and something tells me that people like Lewk in the privacy of the ballot box are going to vote Trump:(
If by 'blatant corruption' you mean, a lot of nebulous insinuation of corruption and no proof, then sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
She's about as guilty as OJ Simpson.
Still far better her than the alternative.
If that's true, then where's the proof?
In people's heads not the courtroom, same as OJ Simpson. Half the country have condemned her as guilty no matter what the judicial system has to say.
Undoubtedly true, but what goes on people's heads and what's actually the case are two very different things.
Oh well, I don't think I'm the only foreigner to be utterly mystified by Americans seething hatred of Hillary Clinton.
I think that actually most Americans don't hate her - the hate comes from the right and that's nothing new for a Democratic candidate. I think a lot of Americans distrust her and don't particularly like her, but that's rather different from hate. And I think the distrust and dislike are valid responses to the public persona she projects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It doesn't help that a lot of us DO hate Trump. When you just loathe the other candidate, you really have no reason to be looking for and praising any virtues possessed by their opponent. You don't have to defend her, you can concede against any attack against her and just say "yeah but. . . Trump."
This is interesting - what is it about her persona that makes people distrust and dislike her?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
She answered that in 96 when The New Yorker interviewed her to get her opinion for why people hate her so much. In her words, she reminds people of their mother-in-law or boss.
Thats from 96, let that simmer and we now have not one, but 2 decades worth of unexplained hate and its the fashionable position to hold.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I am not going to try to psychoanalyze 150 million people, but I can tell you part of why I dislike her. The Clintons have been dogged by scandals for decades. Some have been spurious (Monica, Benghazi) but some have been substantive (Whitewater, the emails, etc.). It is true that detailed analyses have by and large exonerated Hillary from an indictable offense, but they often point to a certain 'the rules don't really apply to me' attitude. When pushed, Clinton apologized for the email thing, but her management of the scandal was somewhere between poor and awful. She first hemmed and hawed, appeared to be far from transparent in how things were handled, and took forever to apologize. When she did apologize, it remains clear that she thinks she did nothing wrong. Ditto for a number of other legitimate lapses of judgment over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm okay with her making mistakes. But I want to hear some immediate and real contrition rather than some carefully focus group-tested paragraph that 'settles' things. It seems like she thinks the whole email thing is just a misunderstanding and that she was in the right all along. She wasn't, and she was incredibly careless in her communications. That isn't to say she should be jailed - far from it! - but it does mean she should acknowledge wrongdoing, and not wait until it has to be dragged out of her.
She also appears somewhat protean in her policies. This is not new for a politician, but I don't like it whenever it is done. My biggest beef with her lately is her about-turn on trade, but there are others. She seems to tailor her policies to match public opinion rather than what she thinks is the best approach.
Lastly, I don't like political dynasties. Hillary is better than, say, a Kennedy or Bush (since she married in rather than descended from a president) but even so I don't like a political system where well-connected elites are the only ones with a serious shot at national office.
I could go on, but there's a reason she's not super likable. It also doesn't help that she's a mediocre orator (if she was better, she might be able to paper over some of these shortcomings with razzamatazz). Of course I still voted for her and I think she will likely do a competent job as POTUS. But it doesn't mean I loved her as a candidate.
(For the record I believe people when they say that in person Hillary is warm, charming, and seems utterly well-meaning and trustworthy. I'm sure she's a great person. But her handling of various scandals really rubs people - including me - the wrong way.)
wiggin, I appreciate your answer and that you can't be expected to speak for every person in America but that hardly seems to explain the level of vitriol she generates. Her handling of her various scandals seems on a par with the likes of Christie's bridgegate or the various W. Whitehouse scandals, like the Plame leak or their e-mail scandel.
You don't remember the vitriol directed against GWB? His re-election was talked about in apocalyptic tones in some of my social circles. And I think Chris Christie might be one of the most reviled people in America right now (though to be fair Bridgegate is a very big deal that is going to result in some people going to jail). I think it's possible you're just seeing a particular slice of the vitriol directed against Clinton and believe it to be representative of the whole. I do not believe that is the case.
There was a lot of animosity towards the candidate of 'the other side' yes, but there seems to be a lot of it going around from what logically should be Hillary's own side.