Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
My take is the sort of young person who tells a pollster that they're planning to vote for Stein is the same sort of person who won't actually bother to turn out on election day.
-
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
gutter_trash
Banned
Also Congress decides who becomes President if a leading candidate fails to get to 270
Herbspiceguy
Member
As a non American it boggles my mind how it comes down to Hillary or Trump. Both of them seem so out of touch, senile and fake. I actually kinda feel sorry.
Lord Frieza
Member
Lol, vanilla ass Romney wouldn't have demolished anyone. He would have a much better chance against them, but it would probably be much closer. People forgot how weak of a candidate he was, I think. Very weak speaker, very weak platform stance, very little charisma or real presence.
Anyone who thinks that about Hillary really doesn't follow what's going on.
Given that most young people dislike both canidates for various reasons it makes it easier for 3rd parties to court them simply by saying "We're not those guys." Seriously, a majority of ads and points I see coming from both Johnson and Stein are this to the point that I don't think any people I know voting for them actually know their parties respective platform.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Where was the youth vote in 2010 and 2014?
Yeah cause Hillary speaking on institutionalized racism is such and outdated fad
And 2016.
Considering how large of a demographic it is, Sanders should have ran away with this election.
Young people aren't reliable voters which is why not much time is spent courting them. The only thing reliable about them is how reliably they will be too lazy to actually go to a polling place and vote. It's why nobody ever took Sanders that seriously aside from one or two surprise wins.
The youth vote really seems like a mermaid that can entice sailors/politicians into the water just to have them drown.
I absolutely blame them. And they will know the oldies were right once they get older and start yelling at clouds. For some this is their first voting election so they think they can do more with their vote then merely put someone in office that shares some of their views. They want to change the world.
I've seen people say they were all about Bernie policies but refuse to vote for Clinton for X reason. If they were old enough to really give a damn about policy they'd be voting Clinton regardless. No, they cared more about the movement and changing the world with a candidate that was anti establishment.
Trump would have no chance if the only people voting for him were rich bigots. But naw, we got people that are all for democratic policy (pro choice, gay marriage, education and health care finance reform, anti Muslim fearing rhetoric) yet still refusing to vote Clinton to send some horrible message no one will hear
jack_package_200
Banned
She didn't try hard enough for young white men, the nations true unrepresented minority /s
Bernie had neither orator skills nor positive message of change. He offered free college. That's what got the kids, mostly white, in his side.
Aaronology
Member
Aw, thanks. Your concern is noted. Care to elaborate on why you believe Clinton is senile, out of touch and fake? Enlighten us poor unfortunate souls with your European wisdom and insight.
How is it surprising? We're at a big generational turn. The new generation is going out from colleges with huge debts, and jobs aren't as certain or pay as good as they were before. In 10 years, a LOT of jobs are going to disappear. Climate change is also there and looming on the future of this generation. It's only obvious they'd be extremely detached from a political scenario that seems to live in the past, focused on petty regional power issues and ignoring the loss of purchasing powers of workers, the increased inequality of wealth, the looming climate change that will create more than a billion of refugees in the next 50 years, and that in 2016 still can't give them the safety of a good healthcare system, for one. There's this pervading perception that no one actually care about people anymore, and the choice is between the status quo with a terrible history on foreign policies and a bonafide nazi.
Born of ignorance. With SCOTUS up for grabs, we have a great opportunity to push this country further left.
I'd really like to see what she said on this. Got a link?
Clinton senile? No. Out of touch. Meh. Fake? Sure (this SNL ad always cracks me up)
As far as the general population is concerned, Trump is probably the most out of touch candidate in recent memory. Can't really call him fake since he'll stick to his guns no matter how wrong he is.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The Supreme Court rarely influences economic issues in the modern era. There's an opportunity to push for greater liberalism, which is obviously worth taking, but economically the status quo is likely to prevail.
As far as actual policies go, Hillary is basically Obama. The SCOTUS changing orientation is just because of Trump, let's not kid ourselves. Any democrat would've buried such a dumpster fire of a candidate.
And the mass murdering in the middle east will continue if not intensify with Hillary. That's one issue that's dear to my heart for me, but it seems genuinely low on the list of priorities for american voters. Can't blame them.
Lord Frieza
Member
Er, what? Foreign policy under the Obama administration has been the best it's been in a long ass time. What are you talking about? I really hope it's not just a Benghazi thing, because that single event along does not equal a 'terrible history,' unless you're on the far right and it was the equal of a genocide.
Aaronology
Member
What does this mean?
Lord Frieza
Member
I hate this horseshit. It's really not true at all. And Hillary is doing a bang up job of winning now. Do you actually follow the polls? Do you understand how far behind Trump actually is?
To try and put that on Obama, or the American government, solely and/or mostly, is just disingenuous
Hillary voted for every single American foreign intervention in the last 30 years iirc. And you talking about Obama's foreign policy as the best it's been in a long ass time mean we can't really talk about this.
Trump has a 30% favorability rating. Please. He's the big reason indipendents are doing really good (right now) and Hillary will win with the widest gap since Reagan, if not more. I'd bet on double digits.
You mean Iraq. Don't make it sound like she voted for dozens upon dozens.
Never would have gone into Panama if it weren't for Hillary.
Lord Frieza
Member
We can, really. How am I wrong? Right now we have friendly relations with most European countries, as well as key countries that we've not had friendly ties with in decades, such as Iran and Cuba. As well as continued indirect support to key middle eastern battling ISIS cells. Again, how am I wrong? Be specific. Because if you think foreign relations are 'horrible' now, then you clearly have no idea what foreign relations were like pre-Obama in the US.
...What? Half of this sentence completely contradicts the other half.
Don't forget Granada, that was all her fault.
Hell, I'd say go back and look at the first speech she gave this campaign as well. One guess what it was on.
I'm embarrassed for these young people.
Even I voted Obama even after he was anti-gay marriage in 2008 in the wake of California's Prop 8. He's clearly pro-gay anything but of course he was just appealing to the incorrect masses at the time. But fuck no I was not going to throw a vote away for third-party against McCain/Palin. I hope these certain young people can swallow their pride and have their eyes flash before their eyes when they see "Trump" on their ballot.
Even I voted Obama even after he was anti-gay marriage in 2008 in the wake of California's Prop 8. He's clearly pro-gay anything but of course he was just appealing to the incorrect masses at the time. But fuck no I was not going to throw a vote away for third-party against McCain/Palin. I hope these certain young people can swallow their pride and have their eyes flash before their eyes when they see "Trump" on their ballot.
Military operations have to be renewed and financed, it's not something you literally vote once. She was consistently one of the most fervent proponent of keeping and sending more soldiers to Afghanistan.
She declared Iran an aggressive power in the region that need'd be controlled.
She repeatedly affirmed her unconditional support for Israel, and while pushing for a two-state solution, never actually criticized Israel's horrible policies.
She argued that the interventions in the Lybia was a net positive because else we'd have situations like in Syria now. Obama admitted the choice (which he too was a proponent of) was a huge mistake. Did she?
She argued against drone strikes in Pakistan, but only before she actually became a secretary of state.
And the worst for me, was the fact that she pushed for arming and training rebel groups in Syria , as if history didn't teach anything of arming and training rebel groups. And this was coming from an extremely fresh Lybia and Iraq/Afghanistan. Obama had one of his best moment here if he was the reason this proposal didn't went through.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
What is that you're missing? No one with that low of a favorability rating could ever win an election unless he was running alone.
Lord Frieza
Member
I realize, I've followed the election closely, but what you're saying is making little sense. You said originally that any other democrat would have destroyed Trump, implying that Hillary is not...but then go on to say you expect her to destroy him? I don't even know what you were trying to get at then.
? Dude read my post:
I'm betting Hillary is winning with double digits advantage. I never implied that Hillary wasn't destroying Trump, i just implied that if the SCOTUS flip, it's more because of Trump than of Hillary because with a "normal" Republican candidates we wouldn't be discussing double digits wins at all.
deadscreensky
Member
Yeah. These young voters have lived literally their entire lives hearing nasty, mostly false stuff about Hillary Clinton. That's going to color your perception of somebody even if you think most of it is nonsense. Democrats just need to pick somebody in 2024 who hasn't been having Republican smear campaigns aimed at them since the 90s and they should be fine with young voters.
This is assuming the Republican party doesn't reform itself somehow. You would think they have to, so it's going to happen because they have no other choice, but we've known this shift needs to happen for many years now and if anything they've gone in the opposite direction.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
Do you think if
Hillary gets in office and starts passing through good policy, young people will turn around on her? Or will they be stuck in "Nah, she's super corrupt and evil and shit at memes!"
when
You Are Viewtiful
Member
He could easily run a primary campaign without Super PACs tbh.
I know. I'm a twenty-something white dude who talks to other white dudes. Trust me, I know.
You have to remember the fact that she is a woman in authority which will immediately remind 19-year-old boys of their mom
M0nochromatic
Member
She's all we have due to our severely compromised system. There's no one else to vote for. A logical fallacy has become reality in that if you don't vote for her you'r against her. It's really crazy shit, but it's always been like this.
Voter apathy isn't really a surprise in conditions like this.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
One thing she isn't is senile and she's fairly in touch with moderately left/center-left Americans; the ones who will make up most of the votes for her.
People need to stop projecting Trump onto her. She is a better human being by all objective measures and she is one of the more qualified nominees in history.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The Medicaid Expansion being optional is the most obvious thing I can think of. To my knowledge Sanders wasn't really all that enthusiastic about immigration reform, so something like DAPA probably wasn't on the minds of Sanders voters at all, but if they're all mad about Citizens United that's another obvious consequence of not caring about SCOTUS.
Ahh, to be young, white, and dumb
i think her "favorability" will rise once in office. a lot of negativity comes on account of her simply running, which makes her seem opportunistic. which is stupid, but that's how people think. the hillary double standard
doubt it translates to an uptick in youth vote but maybe without a primary she'll do a little better in this area
False Witness
Member
This platform is what you're voting for when you vote for Hillary. I honestly have no idea how any liberal youth can read through that and go, "Nope, I don't want that because Hillary shouldn't be in office."
brokenwatch
Member
PreyingShark
Member
I know people voting for her 'cuz "She's truly left, Hillary's actually far right man" and shit like that.
I've.... sorta given up on them at this point. They're way out of this atmosphere.
If "racist" means holding white people to task for building their entire civilization around racial oppression, I am the most racist motherfucker alive.
funkystudent
Member
Sure.
Trump is Trump and Clinton is about as charismatic as a bag of sand that also has 30 years of baggage turning people away.
Gonna be interesting to see what the turnout for this election is since the mindset of "both of these candidates suck" seems pretty wide spread compared to previous elections.
Trump is Trump and Clinton is about as charismatic as a bag of sand that also has 30 years of baggage turning people away.
Gonna be interesting to see what the turnout for this election is since the mindset of "both of these candidates suck" seems pretty wide spread compared to previous elections.
- Status