Might be extreme in US politics, but in Europe, Sanders/Warrens views are as normal as you get.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
538: Clinton and Trump are losing a lot of young voters
- Thread starter Torokil
- Start date
- Status
Might be extreme in US politics, but in Europe, Sanders/Warrens views are as normal as you get.
I was taking more about Johnson/Stein (Libertarian and Green).
It doesn't matter. Things that move young voters are movements and causes. Voting just cuz some policy matches up is a weak and boring reason to vote
Voting to not support terrible candidates for example will get people to vote. Cuz that'll show em!
I don't entirely agreed, at least Steins views are not really extreme in Europe. Her antivaxxing-ish is dumb, but other than that, she is kinda normal.
except for the antinuclear stuff and the Holocaust denying VP
Im talking about her own views. And antinuclear stuff is very popular in my country at least.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
And that whole Russia thing going on, with her attending the 10th anniversary party of RT.
What did the first one do that was bad enough to make this a valid view?
1. What are you coming at "Wal-Mart and Co." for?
2. Can't really have much of a revolution if they don't show up to vote (hint: under 30 voter turnout was comparable to historic norms).
In Russia almost all politicians in both Europe and the U.S. would be viewed as extreme leftists. This is a fun game!
Well RT hosted the green party primary debates. It was either that or the alley behind the local burger king
hydragonwarrior
Member
Bernie showed that there was a candidate with fire... Clinton really needs to do that.
Strong orator skills like Obama and Bernie, tied with a positive message of change really bring out the young vote.
Strong orator skills like Obama and Bernie, tied with a positive message of change really bring out the young vote.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think this will hold.
I think also the people who are bemoaning this election's candidate quality while wishing Obama could have a third term need to come to terms with the fact that they care more about personality than policy. Clinton is basically an Obama clone in ideology other than being slightly more hawkish and probably much better at dealing with Congress. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets significantly more accomplished than Obama did in his second term, even with a split Congress. Except she's not charisma personified so she'll probably get far less credit for it.
Sanders has like one speech.
I think also the people who are bemoaning this election's candidate quality while wishing Obama could have a third term need to come to terms with the fact that they care more about personality than policy. Clinton is basically an Obama clone in ideology other than being slightly more hawkish and probably much better at dealing with Congress. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets significantly more accomplished than Obama did in his second term, even with a split Congress. Except she's not charisma personified so she'll probably get far less credit for it.
Putting Sanders' oratory skills on the same level as Obama's is really disingenuous.
Sanders has like one speech.
At the end of the day this is the truth. All the third party candidates/policies are those who couldn't make it in the other parties because they were too awful or fringe. This has been true my entire life and likely will continue to be true for the rest of my life. It's akin to saying "I don't want Coke OR Pepsi so I'm going to drink Oven Grease and I don't care what happens to anyone else!". Like, have fun with that? I'm sure many people think it makes them seem smart but it really doesn't.
Aaronology
Member
Clinton got several million more votes than Bernie. Please stop acting like a guy who couldn't convince the majority of people within his own party to vote for him somehow inflamed the passions of everyone. He demonstrably did not, which is precisely why he is not the nominee.
And comparing his public speaking ability to Obama's is silly.
I dunno, in my experience as "young voter" us young voters seem to only give a shit during presidential elections, and then fuck right off in the years in between. So any party growth or change they could achieve is blown away in a mess of apathy. So I would guess things will go right back to normal. Though I wouldn't doubt a bit of slow change each election.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's not surprising, though. Say you're a very bright, charismatic, inspired voter who wants more leftwing policies enacted. You have two choices about your political career: you can enter the Democrats, or enter the Greens. Suppose you enter the Greens. You absolutely barnstorm it, impress a lot of people; but inertia is inertia. You win 15% of the vote in your local area, mostly from the Democratic candidate, who then loses 40% to 45% to the Republican candidate. Suppose you hadn't run: well, the Democratic candidate would probably have got all of those votes and won, 55% to 45%. So you running as a third-party candidate left you with even less leftwing policies than you started with!
So the only people who end up in third parties are ideologues; those who are indifferent between better and worse outcomes that aren't their ideal outcome. This is obviously a detriment to forming a coherent political party, given that even within political parties you need compromise to be able to form a party platform as not everyone will always agree.
If America wants good third parties, it needs to change the constitution. But this will never ever happen, because to change the constitution, Republicans and Democrats have to vote for it, and they never will, because it would never benefit them to do so. So America is forever doomed to have terrible third parties, and the Republicans and Democrats will always hold a monopoly which means they'll never really be responsive.
There's a reason American advice to emergent democracies is "use PR, and whatever you do, don't go presidential".
Young people don't vote and then get surprised when their interests are not represented by either of the main two parties.
Ironically, Clinton's platform is much more geared towards young voters than Obama's; when it fails to reel them in, you can bet we won't see the same concessions made in the future.
Ironically, Clinton's platform is much more geared towards young voters than Obama's; when it fails to reel them in, you can bet we won't see the same concessions made in the future.
Byakuya769
Member
LOL. No. Been giving virtually the same speech for the better part of a year.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The VP, himself, ain't a Holocaust denier. He's a wacky motherfucker who doesn't mind being around Holocaust deniers if it allows him to soapbox against Israel, but he ain't a Holocaust denier.
Third parties suck for a variety of reasons, but the one that grind my gears is they only show up every 4 years. Why pick a state get a few folks elected and do a good job, then say hey this is what Green and Libertainism is about.
Instead of every 4 years this
Because without federal funding, which they have to do in a Presidential election, they don't have the money to do jack shit, and the two major parties will do everything in their power to castrate any third party that gets too much support.
Seriously, I voted for Bernie, but hes not a great speaker and most of his speeches suck.
Pushing TPP, bringing in corrupt corporately backed staffers, being a warhawk, and being a general neocon in democratic clothing will do that(Clinton). This is why Bernie wanted to primary her in the first place.
As for Trump, being a general buffoon bereft of common sense will drive people away by default.
I don't understand how the concept is so hard to gasp, we already knew this.
As for Trump, being a general buffoon bereft of common sense will drive people away by default.
I don't understand how the concept is so hard to gasp, we already knew this.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Or 2020. When elected, Hil will be one of the oldest people elected as president, Reagan and maybe Bush 1 were older.
SolidSnakex
Member
Hillary stinks of
it's no wonder that she isn't exactly thrilling young voters by her presence
The worst thing Hillary could do as far as young voters go is embrace those memes that some of her supporters started kicking around. That's incredibly unappealing and reeks of trying way too damn hard to be likable to that demographic.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Romney just playing his cards right for a future run
jack_package_200
Banned
Henchmen21
Banned
You forgot pro-Fracking, Pro Private Prisons.
BigBeauford
Member
Johnson represents what young republicans wanted from their platform.
Watershed and his Wall Street donor base makes that very unlikely.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
They don't understand how important the SCOTUS to the future of any values that they hold
jack_package_200
Banned
Many people, (not just young people/millennials) don't understand that and voting in midterm elections.
If they want a political revolution, they should be primarying the republicans during midterm season.
So long as third parties try to get the presidency before they have seats in congress, they will be irrelevant. Not that I'd want the green or libertarian party as alternative parties(I do want alternative parties, though).
In either case, young voters generally don't turn out in large numbers, so this isn't a big deal.
In either case, young voters generally don't turn out in large numbers, so this isn't a big deal.
Aaronology
Member
You've been called out so many times for attempting (and failing) to paint Hillary Clinton as a neoconservative. It's a claim that is not substantiated in any way by her history, her political stances, her voting record or, you know, reality.
But yet here we are again. It's as if you believe repeating a thing ad nauseam makes it true. (It doesn't)
It's Inuhanyou.
rokkerkory
Member
Honestly don't blame the younger voters at all. They see through all the crookedness from both sides.
exmachina64
Banned
Change a few words and I'm pretty sure this is what you were saying in 2012.
Romney's done and he knows it. All that matters in the end is that he didn't support Trump and no one broke ranks to help him create a new party.
jack_package_200
Banned
The alt-left usually do not let facts get in the way of their misinformation
n00bsauce87
Member
Well they might not be voting. No way they are voting for obama-is-an-uncle-tom Dr. Jill from the green party.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Well okay, the content and abilities obviously aren't the same but there's something in common with how Bernie was able to bring some of the young vote to his side (since we're only talking about the young vote) and he ignited something to produce those diehard Bernie supporters.
Super_Cobra
Member
Yes! When I saw her do the "dab" because it was the "cool" thing at the time, it felt desperate to fit in with the younger crowds. Bernie was just Bernie and cared for young people.
The Artisan
Member
what does the 538 mean?
Clinton has spent her life making things better for children. The idea that somehow Bernie is the one who cares for young people doesn't match up to historical fact.
It's the website this article came from.
The name of the website comes from the number of electoral college votes in a Presidential election.
I'm glad. Even good third party candidates would just hurt the major party closest to you because of first past the post.
Inspector Jones
Member
As a young person; no one in my circle is a fan of Hillary. Not that anyone is supporting Trump either.
Googly Eyes Dog
Banned
I admire my fellow millennial's push for a viable third part option. Especially in elections like this where (IMO) neither candidate is an A+. I just wish that the millennial vote cared about issues other than """the establishment""" and weed.
gutter_trash
Banned
This
I wish my fellow Millenials would realise that you don't get a third party system by voting in presidential elections. It's not how they work. If you want a third party candidate you have to fundamentally change the way the USA runs its elections, which means getting involved in party politics and changing the agenda of the parties.
Voting third party in a presidential election accomplishes precisely nothing and will never, ever result in a third choice. It can't, by definition - if a third party arise it would take the place of one of the current two parties. The only way to have more than a choice of two at the top of the ticket is to get involved at every level of politics and build change from the ground up.
But we never seem to want to actually do the work, instead it's a ton of complaining about turd sandwiches and a douche every four years and that's it.
- Status