Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Young people are such a disappointment when it comes to voting. They were able to come out in droves for Obama, but God help us if you want them to give a shit about midterms and other local elections.
-
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
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I don't care how you feel about Clinton. Why would you want to risk Trump destroying what Obama worked 8 years for?
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
These are probably people who have the luxury not to care either way.
brokenwatch
Member
br0ken_shad0w
Member
WhateverItTakes
Banned
Judging people as a collective and as individuals are very different beasts. Statistically, Trump (had, at least by one poll a month or so ago) the majority of the white vote. Slim sure, but that still means you're allowed to call out this general trend, that some sort of majority of white Americans support a candidate with bigoted views.
If a dude goes down a street, see's a white guy, and thinks "I bet he's a racist Trump voter", sure, that's judgy as hell. But the position of hating Clinton so much to vote third party in the American system is a decidedly white position to have. Because minorities know a third party vote isn't gonna get anyone in office, it'll just make it more likely a racist is made the President of the United States, and they can't afford that.
The privilege of knowing it won't get any worse for you regardless of who is in office.
brokenwatch
Member
WhateverItTakes, that's a much more nuanced point and I appreciate you elaborating. That said I just don't appreciate immediately labelling (anonymous online posters) as a particular race due to their political opinions. It feels like a sweeping generalization to me. Cheers.
Then are you comfortable sharing with me, an anonymous online poster, which race you yourself identify as?
"Not all white people" isn't the point. It's that it's effectively ONLY white people.
reelbigtink
Member
I'll echo you since this is the main reason so many kids are anti-Hillary.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
I'm technically a "millennial", and I don't want to come off all "those damn kids these days", but a lot of the younger voters I've spoken to have been...well, deeply frustrating.
There's definitely a "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" problem, along with a certain tendency towards absolutism and a degree of magical thinking - ie. "if we want/believe in X hard enough and refuse to compromise, we'll get what we want". I often see people, when confronted with aspects of how the system works, complain "It shouldn't be that way".
Sure, but it is. If you want to work to change that, great, but in the meantime, you have to deal with reality. Wanting things to be a different way means precisely nothing. Refusing to engage with the system because it's imperfect just means that people more motivated than you get to set the agenda, and chances are pretty good you're not gonna like what they choose.
There's definitely a "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" problem, along with a certain tendency towards absolutism and a degree of magical thinking - ie. "if we want/believe in X hard enough and refuse to compromise, we'll get what we want". I often see people, when confronted with aspects of how the system works, complain "It shouldn't be that way".
Sure, but it is. If you want to work to change that, great, but in the meantime, you have to deal with reality. Wanting things to be a different way means precisely nothing. Refusing to engage with the system because it's imperfect just means that people more motivated than you get to set the agenda, and chances are pretty good you're not gonna like what they choose.
reelbigtink
Member
Warren hasn't had 30 years of dumb attacks launched at her.
I agree. Damn, it would be nice if Obama could get a third term, I'd gladly vote for him again.
To be fair Warren hasn't voted consistently in favor of war for 30 straight years like Hillary managed to do in 12 years of being a Senator.
Right. But the point is that it's not because young men are afraid of powerful women in leadership positions, but it's young people (girls and boys) that just aren't connecting with Hillary due to a variety of things. One of those things is that she lacks the charisma to entice younger folks. She's no Bill and definitely no Obama nor even a Sanders who has that angry, fiery demeanor to him nor does she have the folksy progressive charm of Warren. And she's definitely not a living meme like Biden. And when it comes to the issues themselves she's also more strict on drugs, free education, and has a more aggressive foreign policy. All of those things aren't going to make the young folks very enthusiastic. They'll commit eventually, but the contrast between Hillary and Sanders, Warren, etc. is a bit more deep than just the fact that she's an old woman.
I dunno. I think the woman as President thing goes deeper. It's not the end all be all, but its lack or precedent is a huge factor and shouldn't be discounted. Of course there are other, more sagacious reasons for disliking Hillary, and gender should by no means used to undercut those concerns. But the fact is we all grew up without a woman running things, and so for most of us the closest analogue to a woman with ultimate power is a mother-- towards whom the rebellion instinct first kicked in as we gained self-awareness and autonomy.
Sure, we could say we prefer Warren, but many of us only became aware of Warren as adults, while Clinton has been in the limelight for a good chunk of if not all of our lives. There's a developmental correlation that influences men's opinions.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Warren also never actually ran for president and is held up as the ideal "could-have-been" without getting dragged through the mud and having to engage in a messy primary fight. See: Cuomo in 1992, Kennedy in 1980 (his luster as a presidential candidate was more that he was a Kennedy and not Carter rather than a deep love of him, and actually going through the primary killed those chances), as well as the current trend of both saying that Kasich/Rubio would be crushing Hillary right now (they've suffered no attacks in the general election) and comments about how much Biden would be killing it.
tbh I don't quite get the obsession with Warren for prez, I don't have a problem with her but she seems pretty comfortable in her place as an opponent of banks/big business in the Senate rather than a leader the way the president has to be. For foreign policy in particular she seems pretty detached and that's the area a president has the most power over. It's probably better to have her drafting banking regulations or something that Clinton can sign than detaching her from the senate.
tbh I don't quite get the obsession with Warren for prez, I don't have a problem with her but she seems pretty comfortable in her place as an opponent of banks/big business in the Senate rather than a leader the way the president has to be. For foreign policy in particular she seems pretty detached and that's the area a president has the most power over. It's probably better to have her drafting banking regulations or something that Clinton can sign than detaching her from the senate.
Aaronology
Member
Clinton was fairly popular before she attempted to run for President. So it isn't that people do not connect with her, or that she doesn't excite people. She clearly does and has and the most defining reason why people are less enthusiastic about her now rests almost entirely with Republicans.
And further, I think it's important to note that she mainly failed to capture the vote of the white youth. It's a distinction that deserves repeating.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Didn't the kids try to shout her down during her DNC speech?
Aaronology
Member
Sure did. What were they chanting again, "we believed in you" and "traitor"?
Shameful.
Hillary was a senator for 8 years ffs. If you are going to propogate this utter nonsense at least get your dates right.
Lord Frieza
Member
You missed a key reference from earlier in the thread
Almost any left-wing governement party platform is amazing on paper. If you ever voted before, you should know. Here in Europe, left wings parties come out with much more progressive platforms, and when in office, you see the usual "decrease workers rights, decrease regulations, cut funding for healthcare and education" shit that we've been seeing in general the last 20 years. Being a right wing economical party with better civil rights policies isn't what people really want from the left. They want also an economical change, and not a worsening of education, healthcare and economics of poor people in general.
All the major parties campaign on the same shit "we'll actually care about you" and then they don't. Better civil rights for minorities and immigrants shouldn't be used a bargaining chip for all the other social and economical issues. That's not only frustrating for people who believe society should help everyone and not only the richs, but also divisive and promote tensions betweens the lower classes. Which, sadly, it's a method for keeping stability as old as government itself.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
Cool. Then they should get to work making that happen instead of expecting that voting in presidential elections is sufficient.
Moreover, that's really only relevant if they believe Trump and Clinton will be equally bad for lower-income people. If they believe that Clinton would be even a LITTLE bit less bad than Trump, then refusing to vote for her out of some sense of moral purity or indignation is essentially valuing that self-satisfaction over the lives of the people they're claiming to be concerned for.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sadly, I think even quite a liberal court would have blocked Medicaid - it was 7 to 2 with only Sotomayer and Ginsburg dissenting. Garland would almost certainly have been in the majority rather than the dissent, so even a hypothetical full-throttle liberal Clinton court (which will never happen because Clinton is hopelessly small-c conservative and will probably appoint another batch of Garlands rather than push her advantage) would not have had enough Ginsburgs to get it through.
Citizens United is certainly the first (important) economic issue to hang in the balance as far as the SC is concerned in some time, although even that said it is very indirectly economic; removing Super PACs is important but in the long-run a tiny drop in the ocean of money in American politics.
Nor has she ever ran for a national office.
cubicle47b
Member
I'm 98% in agreement with Jill Stein so as long as Hillary has a commanding lead in my state I'll vote for her. If the election is somehow close, I'll vote for Hillary.
eBay Huckster
Member
Warren has been on the national stage, with all the good and bad that that entails for one's political aspirations, for all of four years
YepI and most of the people in my circle of friends are voting Johnson. We're all 19-24.
The luxury of being able to throw away your vote.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Yep
Such pride to vote for an anti-science know-nothing.
Maybe so, but now we're getting into clinical psychology arguments and I would love to see legitimate data on this before making such an observation. Hillary's issue is that if she's perceived as a no-fun mom then it's because her policies and views typically ARE that of a no-fun allowed mom to a more hungry, pessimistic, and energetic youth cohort. Cause and effect.
Yes, she was popular before she ran. The world was very different then though. We were suffering the dark days of Dubya and liberal pride was low. The very word 'liberal' was a slur and Hillary was one of the few bright beacons of progressive ideals then. Things changed drastically after '08 and the Great Recession. Merely being progressive isn't enough for a lot of young folks. They want and demand certain things that weren't even on the progressive radar a decade ago.
In terms of her support among minorities, I still put that down to name recognition and familiarity. She's a tried-and-true commodity and she provides assurances for those who can't be over idealistic. But even in that graph the young folk trail the older folk, and if you were to separate the ages into the 18-30 range I think it would show even more of a disparity (but still in Clinton's advantage).
They were an extreme minority of a minority and I saw plenty of over 30s in that group. It wasn't just a bunch of angry kids. Elizabeth Warren still has great favorability margins among the 18-30 Dem crowd (and overall). And yes, her short time in the sun helps since there's less dirt on her and she hasn't had enough opportunity to disappoint and ruin a person's ideal of what they want her to be. Not arguing against that. But that's not really a gender thing. Obama found that out in 2010 the hard way.
DragonSworne
Banned
Give 'em time:
even if this particular study's data handling was stupid
Millennials are from 81 not 82
AngmarsKing701
Member
I'd be surprised if this is just 18-29 year olds. Anyone know what the ratios are for 30-50 years olds? It may be a bit higher for the top two candidates vs. throwing Johnson and Stein in there, mostly because those of us who are older have voted in enough of these that we know the Libertarian and Green parties are just wasted votes.
But yeah, Hillary is probably the most divisive candidate the Dems could put out there, and she'd likely be in a bloody battle if the GOP had nominated anyone even remotely interesting or somewhat moderate. Romney would be making this a nail biter.
Then you have Trump, who is easily the worst candidate to have ever won a party's nomination. I'm not sure whom he could beat, but it won't be Hillary.
Not surprised that young voters (and likely older ones as well) are finding this whole election to be horrible.
But yeah, Hillary is probably the most divisive candidate the Dems could put out there, and she'd likely be in a bloody battle if the GOP had nominated anyone even remotely interesting or somewhat moderate. Romney would be making this a nail biter.
Then you have Trump, who is easily the worst candidate to have ever won a party's nomination. I'm not sure whom he could beat, but it won't be Hillary.
Not surprised that young voters (and likely older ones as well) are finding this whole election to be horrible.
DragonSworne
Banned
and nuclear power plants are bombs
DragonSworne
Banned
Jill Stein has more things in common with Trump than she does with Clinton.
While first lady, Hillary was the least liked of the last four....and by quite a margin. You can't just "make" people like you, and then blame her current numbers on "dumb attacks".
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Obama did screw up Iraq pretty badly
Also in relation to that he took way too long to take action on IS
excelsiorlef
Member
....
You know why right?
...
She was the first to want to really be politically active, she wanted to champion healthcare reform...
DragonSworne
Banned
This. People hated her because she didn't like to pick colors and drink tea all day.
She was also actively targeted by Rush Limbaugh during the height of his power and influence.
sturgboski
Member
Elaugaufein
Member
So how far does this young people are stupid and we should support the wrong thing for the greater good theory go ?
The Australian Labor Party adopted a hard line take on refugees to win votes. As a result they can't even condemn this: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-of-children-in-australian-offshore-detention more than half-heartedly. Is that okay ?
The Australian Labor Party adopted a hard line take on refugees to win votes. As a result they can't even condemn this: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-of-children-in-australian-offshore-detention more than half-heartedly. Is that okay ?
Explain how he screwed up Iraq and took too long on IS.
- Status