So was I...still am. Not sure why that equals ignorance. Actually, my views haven't changed much at all as I've gotten older. Even as I've studied politics and stayed informed as much as time would allow me to, it never occurred to me to switch parties.
Communist? Like Russian communist? That's not exactly a disqualifier these days in the incoming White House....
This. Going forward, the DNC would be well served to get younger. We are reaching the tipping point of a national demographic shift. When we get there, it would be nice to have talent ready to take advantage. I might be in the minority but I really want to see the Congressional Democrats have a more muscular response to the Republicans.
Well we also know that if you are college educated you are more likely to be a liberal or if you are a minority...so that will have to be explained as well. Do you know why that is?
Don't be fooled by some of the conservaties that say if we had a better candidate they'd support him. No matter who the DNC nominates they will smear, dig up dirt, and latch onto any attack they can. That's just politics. Truth is if the DNC can get their base riled up and passionate they will win every election for the foreseeable future, more people are just liberal in the country so the more people they get out to vote the better chance they win.
Eh, I think they can probably continue to take progressives and young people for granted. But look at the states you listed that flipped -- Rust Belt states with strong union legacies. They had been reliably Democrat because the Democrats supported the unions and were ideologically aligned with the idea of protectionism to keep wages high, even though otherwise they were not necessarily especially liberal. Since then, the economy has changed in ways that make the union benefits unsustainable, companies and people are moving out, state coffers have been suffering, and in many places state governments have been dysfunctional. We've been hearing for two forevers about how all the good manufacturing jobs that they were used to are now gone. Much of that is a consequence of economics, but it was Republican ideology of free trade and putting primacy on capital over labor that pushed things along. But, those union workers weren't finding friends at the national level in the Democrats anymore because they also bought into the idea of free trade and eliminating protectionism. They perhaps still support unions, but without doing anything to protect the companies, the unions presided over workforces with no shops to go to. Now here comes a guy who is a Republican but obviously not ideologically Republican saying something heretical -- **** free markets, we're going to protect American companies to keep manufacturing domestic. So now Trump still has his Republican base (if he can avoid pissing them off too much) and gains a lot of traditional Democrat blue collar union-minded voters who feel like someone has finally heard their complaints and will do something to protect the kinds of jobs they used to have. Now, I don't think he can deliver, but it's understandable to go with the guy who says he's going to try. Clinton knew enough to back off the TPP, but she didn't do anything to say we were going to take any proactive steps to reverse the pain the Midwest has gone through. Trump was saying he was going to bring back coal, he was going to tear up NAFTA, he was going to take immigrants out of the labor pool, and all of that means more work for the skilled, white, blue collar worker. Bernie could have competed with that. He was reacting to the same phenomenon, except bringing a big government approach instead of a magical thinking approach. That doesn't mean I think the DNC should have run Bernie. Maybe they should have, but he seems to me to have other weaknesses as a candidate. But, what it means for Democrats in the future is that they need to get more aggressive about being a champion of jobs. Raising the minimum wage was some low-hanging fruit in some regards but it has a vulnerable spot when it comes to the argument of job creation. Trump took the easy path of promising to get jobs by taking them away from foreigners, essentially. The alternative is taking them away from computers and robots, which is probably not credible. Maybe they need to just get on the protectionism bandwagon to neuter it as an issue. It'll hurt economic growth and probably cost us jobs in the long run, but if the goal is short-term votes and not long-term prosperity go that way. But, I'm an elitist (apparently), so I'd rather go a different way as a country and put our emphasis on fixing and then executing on education and training. That leaves the older worker-voter out in the cold, but it makes for better and more interesting jobs in the long run. I'd vote for it, but obviously not enough people will.
Yeah, I heard that as a young man. Now that I'm firmly middle-aged, I see it's a bunch of bullshit. Still, I shutter at the thought of leaving it to 18-24 year olds to determine who will be our President.
You guys need to watch Dinesh's " Hillary's America" to better understand your party. It is rotten to core, the proof is being shown by WikiLeaks for the whole world to see.
when those people grow up and have kids they tend to become republicans. Usually once you mature you don't need your politics fed to you by a smirking comedian.
Like others have said, the majority of those little kids usually grow up and have more mature political opinions. Former hippies voted in Reagan.
