Young Voters Cooling towards Democrats

[rockymountaindem]

Source: CBS News website

Whither the youth vote? A year after backing Barack Obama by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are quickly cooling toward Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.

A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18-to-29 year olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.

While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed - from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.

"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president - and, perhaps, with politics itself."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/24/politics/main6237092.shtml

---

It would be good if the Democrats would actually *do* something with our majority so the Republican attitude that elections don't matter won't prevail.

[NoNothing]

1. Not surprising

As an age group, I think they are most likely to be unemployed.

[AlphaCentauri]

15. For that age employment would not be the voting factor

They want change

[yava]

41. Sad but understandable, they were cheated

with promises unkept!

[live love laugh]

25. Not surprising to me because the media constantly attacks Democrats

Here and otherwise.

I cannot even listen to progressive radio without attacks ad nauseum.

Are the attacks warranted? Somewhat. I'd like to hear more from President Obama. The Democrats don't all seem to be working for the people. BUT, their counterparts' incessant atrocious, egregrious acts are far more newsworthy than anything the Democrats are not doing.

[JDPriestly]

32. Too many conservative Democrats in the Senate.

They can barely get out of bed in the morning, much read legislation or vote on something.

The Senate is going to be cleaned out this year.

[gleaner]

46. Yes, the Republicans ....

are a lot worse, but that fuels the anger and frustration people feel. They have endured years and years of growing conservatism and finally, but slowly realized how it was affecting them. So at the end of George Bush's term they voted overwhelmingly to repudiate it. They had hope, the celebrated what they hoped would make a big difference in their lives now, and in the future.

Instead they got the Obama administration which has not done much to help anyone. Compared to Bush he is better, but he does a lot of the things that Bush did at his worst. So it is three more years of sellout, catering to the Republicans, lies and corruption. Of course they attack him. He was their hope and he was lying all the time and he still is. He is among the worst that the Democrats have to offer.

If you are blaming the media for what Obama does, you should stop and think about it for a few minutes. If Obama did not generate actions that opened him up to criticism he wouldn't have so much of it. If I drop a brick on someone's head and a third person sees and tells on me are they at fault or am I at fault? We are all responsible for our own actions and ideas. You can't put Obama's failings and weaknesses off on the people who talk about them no matter how hard you try. It only makes you look untrustworthy and uncaring.

I am constantly and unpleasantly astonished at people who put Obama's reputation ahead of the lives and well being of most of the citizens of this country and even themselves. Because unless you are independently wealthy and living in a bubble somewhere, this will eventually hit you too. And all of the excuses you make for Obama, all of the rationalizations you type here all of the concern for others you abandon to protect a President who wouldn't lift a finger to help you will have been for nothing. When that happens, and it will sooner or later, you will have no one but yourself to blame. We are all on our own now, and who do you think will stand with you when you finally realize what has been done to all of us, including you?

[No Elephants]

67. "A plague on both your houses" is probably the reason for voter apathy,

especially among the young and still idealistic. Ditto, "the {somewhat} lesser of two evils argument.

And, when someone goes out of his way to give them "hope" that will "change," they abandon their apathy and support and vote in amazing numbers.

Getting hopes up without delivering probably works only once, though.

[Zoeisright]

2. So they're just as stupid as old people.

Voting for the dipshits who got us into this mess in the first place is just plain stupid.

And I don't like how wussy the Democrats are being. But forbidding torture, investing in stem cell research, and putting new rules on credit cards are huge advances that President Obama has accomplished. The two parties are NOT the same.

It's just that Democrats have no spine.

[Romulox]

7. Um, the "dipshits go us into this mess" have largely been Democrats for the past 4 years

(in the Congress) and last year plus (in the executive.) :hi:

[jgraz]

10. And before that, they were the "dipshits who could have stopped this mess"

but chose not to.

[Political Heretic]

14. Ouch.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. If we just ban dipshits, would that help?

Somehow they'll get around any "No Dipshits Allowed" laws.

[Kolesar]

21. Your numbers don't work...eom

[No Elephants]

73. But the political point stands nonetheless. Please see Reply 72.

[classysassy]

37. The blame game

Mr Bush and his five fools that hang out at the supreme court had nothing to do with the problems in our country?.

[seeinfweggos]

54. yeah, right. lol. math's not your strong point is it? nt

[No Elephants]

72. Democratic Congress elected in 2006. Overwhelmingly Democratic Congress elected in 2008. Obama

inaugurated January 20, 2009.

You do the math.

Better yet, think about the political point Romulux made, which an inconsequential math mistake did not negate.

[Political Heretic]

12. The only thing stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting change

Democrats want to provide more deck chairs so that a greater number of people can have seats on our sinking ship.

Republicans want to throw 2/3 of the chairs overboard and let the richest passengers reserve the few remaining seats on our sinking ship.

Stem cell research... a few new rules on credit cards.... the ship is still sinking.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. +1,000

[Hosnon]

20. Bingo. I can probably still be considered the youth vote.

My first vote at 18 was for Nader (considered myself liberal but without party). Bush and the GOP pushed me to the Democrats and I voted for Kerry and pretty much every Democrat on every ticket since. And then I campaigned for Obama.

The party's inability to get their agenda passed despite historic majorities is pushing me back to where I was at 18...liberal but not necessarily Democratic.

[Zoeisright]

64. If you voted for Nader, you are no progressive.

And thanks a lot for Bush, BTW.

[No Elephants]

69. Nader is conservative? BTW, Nader was not responsible for putting Bush in office or for

keeping him there, either.

The 2000 election was a little bit of Republicans, gay marriage buggada buggada, Diebold, Brother Jeb and his Florida crew and the SCOTUS. Oh, and maybe even a litle Gore/Lieberman campaign.

Maybe even a little Clenis--or was it only an accident that a neo theo candidate who pandered to the religous right blatantly followed Clinton? And then, there was the disappointment of the members of the GLBT community and their supporters and others over DADT and various other Clinton-Gore triangulations and misadventures.

I've never voted anything but Democrat and probably never will, but blaming Nader is a misdiagnosis. Nader was no more responsible for Gore's loss than the RW third parties were responsible for Obama's win.

And, even if Nader were the reason, nothing, but nothing, gives Republicans and Democrats the right to be the only two parties in America, much as the two have joined hands to try to make that the practical reality.

[No Elephants]

71. Perhaps inability is not necessarily the reason why

the agenda did not pass? Maybe the agenda described to the Democratic base is not the actual agenda? (Please see the last three or so paragraphs of Reply 68.)

Just my theory (but not only mine).

[Zoeisright]

63. Wrong.

I proved you wrong. And you have the GALL to think that stem cell research doesn't matter? How unbelievably STUPID.

[No Elephants]

70. On stem cell and credit cards, please see Reply 68.

[Occulus]

28. 'Bout those new CC regulations...

When does it go into effect? I just got my new statement today. I have only seventeen days to pay my March statement.

Do they get a "freebie" month because the statement was printed before the regulations went into effect (I think that was two days ago, yes?), or did they find a loophole already?

[Iowa]

39. Bullshit...

"So they're just as stupid as old people... But forbidding torture, investing in stem cell research, and putting new rules on credit cards are huge advances that President Obama has accomplished."

Obama gets zero credit on torture. Zip. None.

1) First of all, Obama did not forbid it - it was already forbidden... it was illegal, unconstitutional, and considered to be morally abhorrent by all civilized people long before Obama was president.

2) Forbidding torture is neither an "accomplishment" nor a "huge advance". Adherence to existing laws regarding torture is not only legally required, it is a basic minimum requirement of humanity. It goes without saying that torture is forbidden. Providing accolades to someone who forbids torture is like heaping praise on someone for not being a rapist... it's just not the type of thing one gets "credit" for. And to actually consider it an "accomplishment" and a "huge advance" is just plain "stupid" (to use your word).

3) And finally, since the issue of torture is long settled, Obama's only contribution of note has been to shield torturers from legal consequences, and by doing so to become complicit in those crimes.

So no... he doesn't score any points when it comes to torture, he loses points.

Investing in stem cell research is a no-brainer, and there's nothing particularly praiseworthy in meeting basic, minimum expectations. Nor is there anything particularly laudable about addressing credit card rules, while simultaneously ignoring some of the most egregious and devastating banking industry practices that have the potential to literally destroy this country's economy.

Nevertheless, you gush over these things as if Obama was another FDR. You have set the bar so incredibly low that Richard Nixon would probably have exceeded your expectations by a mile. Yet you have the audacity to come on here and refer to "old people" as "stupid".

[No Elephants]

68. As far as Obama, can we please examine those three differences?

Congress went Democratic after the November 2006 election. A Republican Congress voted to lift the ban on stem cell research, but Bush vetoed the bill in July 2006.

McCain urged Bush to expand stem cell research, signing a letter with 57 other Republican and Democratic Senators and campaigned on federal funding of stem cell research, even though a serious portion of his base opposed same:

"Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007"



As for forbidding torture: Obama is not responsible for that.

Torture has long been forbidden by international law, both written (treaties) and court made, and U.S. law.

Moreover, it was a Republican, Reagan, who made the U.S. a party to The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

That treaty is now the law of the United States of America. That Treaty legally obligates the United States to prosecute those who engage in

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

So, Obama's forbidding torture was never an issue. It was forbidden in this country decades before Obama's inauguration.

No, the only thing left for Obama to do was prosecute those who violated existing prohibitions against torture. However, the Obama administration immediately took prosecution of anyone but a few lawyers off the table. And, not too long after that, even prosecuting the lawyers were off the table, too. Even complaining to their respective state bar associations was rejected.

In other words, right out of the gate, President Obama and the D of J either violated or found a way to circumvent the law that required the U.S. to prosecute. The only other possible conclusion is that Bushco never engaged in any act of the kind described above.

Guess what happens when laws against torture are not enforced, not even a smidge? Would you expect theft to increase if theft were never prosecuted, even with the whole world watching to see if prosecution would occur?

And, while I certainly have no first-hand knowledge, I've read that "outsourcing" of torture, via extraordinary rendition, continued after Obama's inauguration, as did torture in places like Bagram.



As for credit cards, I am not sure why you attribute that to Obama, rather to Congress. The bill had been floating around Congress, with strong support from both Parties, well before Obama's election.

"The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights was introduced in the 110th Congress as H.R. 5244 in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York and the chair of the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. The bill had passed 312 to 112 but was never given a vote in the Senate.

In the 111th United States Congress the bill was reintroduced as H.R. 627 and on April 30, 2009, the House passed it, with a strong bipartisan basis, with 357 yes votes to 70 no votes. The Senate followed suit and passed an amended version on May 19 with 90 yes votes and 5 no votes.<2> The House passing the amended bill the next day by a vote of 361 to 64 and it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

And, in attention to hanging around a long time, which alerted credit card issuers to stick it to us even more, the bill gave an additional grace period of nine months after it became law. So credit card issuers had plenty of notice that they had best get busy nailing us to the wall--and they did just that before their grace period ended--in spades. (Long-time Congressman and former liberal, Barney Frank, actually had the temerity to express shock that the issuers would "abuse" the time period, ala Claude Rains in Casablanca, and just as unconvincingly).


IMO, the credit card bill, Democratic, Republican or bi-partisan, is not all that fantastic, anyway, though it certainly does nibble around the edges of the most egregious practices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

And, of course, the credit card law, a sop to us, was a drop in the bucket compared to what banks, investment bankers and AIG got from us. And, when Dodd tried to include in the TARP bill a provision limiting executive compensation, Geithner, then Obama's nominee intervened and got Dodd to take it out. And, oops, still no new regulations about funny money derivatives, getting too big to fail, etc. (Elizabeth Warren is beside herself.)



So, you cited a total of 3 huge differences between a Democratic President and a Republican President, none of which are as "huge" as it may appear before one takes a look.



Additionally, I would not be so quick to attribute unpopular things Democrats do (or fail to do) to lack of spine or bumbling, or the usual rationales given here.

It could be that Democrats are every bit as competent and "well-spined" as their Republican counterparts, if not more so. Sometimes, people who are smart and gutsy enough to get themselves elected and re-elected in the rough and tumble world of politics hit exactly what they aim to hit; and what they hit is what they aimed for. However, what they CLAIM to be aiming for may not be what they were actually aiming for.

Maybe, just maybe, Republicans can afford to be more candid with their base about their true goals, because they've been professing to be pro-wealth and pro-business for a very long time. And maybe, just maybe, when Democrats govern and legislate a lot like Republicans have, they find it more to their advantage to appear too conciliatory or too bumbling to do what their base expects of them.

I, for one, simply don't believe that Democrats are dumber or have less grit than Republicans.

If I am wrong, we'd best be searching for Democrats with at least a few brains and a semblance of a spine.

If however, I am correct, we'd best stop concocting rationalizations for why Democratic voters seem to get less of what they want than Republican voters do, no matter which party is controlling Washington, D.C. at the time.

[Autumn]

3. Some old ones too.

This old lady is really cooling towards them. They need to make some big changes.

[Viking12]

75. Middle aged ones too.

This middle-aged man is really cooling towards them. They need to make some big changes. I recently got a call from the Democratic party soliciting donations. I explained that I have donated and worked hard for the party over the past few years under the assumption that when they gained power they'd use it to make the changes they promised. Now that they have gained power and have failed to exercise it, I'm a more little snake-bitten.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. If they don't get results they wanted, they go elsewhere.

That's life.

That's why the Dems in DC don't get it.

[No Elephants]

74. Or they stay home, which is a shame, IMO. Either way, Democrats lose votes.

[No Elephants]

77. I think Democras in D.C. get it. They just don't know what to do about it.

To get elected, you need corporate donors, especially larger, "soft money" donations. Those come from business, not most individuals. So, you can't elected if you piss off business.

Besides, the left will vote Democratic anyway, because it has no place else to go.

Or so the conventional wisdom says.

And, so far, conventional wisdom has been accurate, for the most part, because the left has made it so.

[closeupready]

5. Predictable fallout.

n/t

[Romulox]

6. Young people aren't into a blank check for war, bankster bailouts, and mandatory insurance? Fickle!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Froward69]

9. Elected Democrats are shitting in their own nest...

...and will expect to be reelected. FAT chance.

Proving the mindset "WHY VOTE AT ALL" nothing changes.

yet republicans hold on to their base as their base knows nothing else.

YES I AM DISCOURAGED TOO! I gave up in 1994, then did all i could in 2005-08 to get Democrats elected. now, after all this Bull Shit happening. I really feel what is the goddamn point, Why Bother at all.

[No Elephants]

76. I think we have to get more involved at the local Party level and well before candidates are chosen.

At least, that's my new focus.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Relatively speaking Obama has been President longer to young people than to the old, a larger

percentage of their lives.

In general their lower level of life experience reduces their patience and toleration to perceived non-performance or lack of results, they voted for a Democratic President because he promised change.

Logically speaking it's impossible to change if you don't have a base point and you can't have a base point if you don't look in to the rear view mirror to hold the past accountable and refusing to do so, because it may be unpleasant, only blurs the lines, between what you're trying to change from and what you are.

The Cheney/Bush years were catastrophic on many levels, not just a few.

Thanks for the thread, rockymountaindem.

[Jefferson23]

17. I don't blame them, not one bit. I hope they put their energy into

supporting progressives, not centrists, and not give up on politics.

[wroberts189]

18. All he had to do was keep his campaign promises...but no..can't have that. nt

[Jefferson23]

19. Liberal group: White House has 'loser mentality'

The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners," the leader of a liberal group said Tuesday. (Photo Credit: Getty Images/File)

Washington (CNN) - The leader of a liberal group slammed the Obama administration Tuesday, saying the White House "obviously has a loser mentality."

Progressive Change Campaign Committee Co-founder Adam Green was reacting to a statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the issue of a public option in a health care bill.

Gibbs said Tuesday that support for it was not broad enough to justify including a government-run insurance program in the health care reform proposal released by the White House Monday in advance of a bipartisan health care summit later this week.

"There isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," Gibbs told reporters in the daily briefing.

The PCCC is leading the charge among progressives to pass a public option and is pressuring senators to sign a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to use a procedural mechanism called reconciliation in order to get the public option through the Senate.

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners," Green said in his statement.

Green added, "More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/23/liberal-group-white-house-has-loser-mentality/?fbid=07WL0Sff4Lp

[AlbertCat]

35. "obviously has a loser mentality."

Which they call "bipartisanship".

[Jefferson23]

36. lol, you'll get no argument from me on that! n/t

[Jakes Progress]

22. This is what the triangulating and bipartizaning

president and his advisors don't get. It's not the avid progressives only that they are turning off. Sure, I'll likely still put in hours for the campaign (probably not as enthusiastically) but besides the hard work by the active progressives the other thing that got Obama elected (besides the worst possible slate the republicans could find) was millions of new young voters. They were energized by thinking that their vote would bring change in America, that Obama was going to be able to make Washington work. People here can say their were naive or stupid, but that is what motivated them to vote. And now old hands telling them that they were stupid or naive or that things will take time are just ways of telling them that they were right the before - that their voting doesn't make any difference. It will be hard to convince them to turn out in sufficient numbers next time. They could take losing a battle or two. They won't settle for not fighting for it. They would probably support someone who fought and lost, but not someone who gives up quietly.

[KoKo]

27. With so much information available to the younger voter today...have to hope that

after the disillusionment they will dig in and work harder. They can see what's going on around them in their own families. The loss of jobs, homes and the prospects for a future that means they will working in Wallyworld if they are lucky.

Think is the kids of the top 1% don't even have to bother to vote for change from either party. They still have what they had before...their prospects haven't changed.

The harder times coming may mean more participation if they can find a way to express it. Might be a lesson learned the hardest way. Those lessons stick with you the rest of your life.

[depakid]

48. What did Obama and the Dems expect that enabling and legitimizing Republicans would get them?

Drew Westen among others called this shot over a year ago:

Change vs. Bipartisanship: What Happens When You Throw a Bipartisan Party and Half the Guest List Stays Home?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/change-vs-bipartisanship_b_165144.html

[No Elephants]

78. This may be beyond Obama or bi-partisanship, IMO. Please see Reply 77 and the last

five (short) paragraphs of Reply 68.

I think we may be in denial about just how intractable the problem of Democrats veering right may be.

[Aramchek]

23. Bullshit. Nobody's going Repig.

[Jakes Progress]

51. They're not going anywhere. They're staying home. nt

[No Elephants]

79. That is not the only alternative.

[GOTV]

24. Fool them once, etc. n/t

[LisaM]

26. Just because they voted for the Democratic candidate doesn't make them Democrats

I saw this vividly at our caucus; the split between the party regulars, who faithfully go to all the district meetings, and who were at all the caucuses I've ever been to, and the young people crowding the room for Obama was obvious. Among other things, they had no patience for the party platform, which we were supposed to vote on before turning to the candidates, and we never finished voting on that (even though it's in the rules). They booed the Hillary supporters. I heard of other precincts where they wouldn't even let one Hillary supporter finish.

They were entirely candidate driven. I also don't personally hugely identify Obama with the Democratic party. Yes, yes, I know he'a a Democrat, but with him - and I just mean this as fact rather than criticism - I don't think party comes first. I never did think so and in fact, I've been pleasantly surprised at how much he has pushed some of the Democratic party agenda.

But I think it was always clear that these young voters were attracted by a persona than by issues. The term change is nebulous. I'd ask Obama supporters, change from what? Change to what? and was dismissed impatiently for asking those things.

[paulk]

60. the caucus I attended in Denver sounds much like yours

I commented at the time (to the other HRC supporters, who had been segregated and subsequently ignored by Obama's), that this was a bad sign for the future of Obama's Presidency, and for the party, because I didn't see those people on the other side of the room as following through once the going got rough - a feeling this poll seems to support...

[krabigirl]

29. Well, if the GOP nominates a libertarian, they will go there. they aren't turning into Palin fans.

[No Elephants]

80. GOP is not the only alternative to voting for the Democratic nominee.

One alternative is to get involved with the local Party, much earlier in the process, well before candidates are chosen and to fight the pro-incumbent and Super Delegate policies of the DNC. I don't expect new voters to think of that on their own; and I certainly don't expect the DNC or Party stars to promote this.

Other alternatives are to vote third Party or stay home.

And, yes, another alternative for them is to find a Republican they like.

Or, maybe Democrats will be Democrats again someday, no matter how much they love corporate donations and corporate employment after "public" service ends.

[Zenlitened]

30. Wow. No one could have anticipated this.

:eyes:

Now, let us place our fingers in our ears and resume the chant:

"La la la la I can't hear you la la la la la..."

[SemperEadem]

31. I highly doubt they're cool towards progressive Dems...

I do believe that they've cooled towards conserva-dems who are really thugs who don't have the stones to admit it.

[Blue_Tires]

33. a sign of the times

folks thought Gen-Xers like myself had short, superficial attention spans and only cared about instant gratification with our microwaves, VCRs Ataris and MTV....A lot of younger folks today could re-write the definition of 'impatience'

[AlbertCat]

34. as the start of a new Democratic movement.

Not with the same ol' Democrats and their utterly bizarre attitude that they must kowtow to the minority and ignore what is wildly popular and could be a big win for them.

The Repugs may make gains in the election, but it won't be because they are a better choice. It will be due to a lack of voter turnout. The Repugs screwed up for 8 years and now the Dems are screwing up (in different ways) this year. Why bother to vote? The government clearly is uninterested in what the people want. Both parties have a "we know better" attitude and yet both parties are a bunch of out of touch millionaires who are obviously more worried about where their next contribution is coming from than what the people want or even need.

As Dr. Dean and Markos Moulitsas point out, the Public Option is something the White House doesn't want to touch, the Dems in the House and Senate don't want to touch and the Repugs of course don't want to touch.... and yet it lingers, it is still popular.... because a majority, regardless of party, want it. No one cares about procedure or bipartisanship (the Repugs get this part) and if the Dems passed the PO it would be a huge win with the general public for them. Imagine if they passed a strong PO that went into effect immediately! Who would be upset? Big insurance. Who does Congress care more about? Insurance companies. Why is the HC bill so long and complicated? That's what happens when you try to reform something without actually changing anything. It's not hard for even the most unpolitical of citizens to connect the dots. So... why vote?


P.S. Of course if you don't vote... you have no right to complain.

[defendandprotect]

38. Not just young voters -- it's a Big Chill on Obama and Dems --

[girl gone mad]

40. Mandated health insurance will win them back!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[No Elephants]

81. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winnah!

Haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this post is both the funniest and most to the point so far.

Thanks for nailing it, girl gone mad.

[yurbud]

42. kids are not impressed by incrementalism and no one is impressed by bipartisanship

[yurbud]

43. I have the same argument in my union over & over as progressives have with Dems...

The union wonders whey they don't attract more young people and more activism from members in general, but refuse to admit it's because they are pursuing micro-incremental change at a glacial pace.

People won't take time off of work or away from their family to make their lives one half of one percent better, or for a change that gives money to the wealthy or their bosses in hopes that it will trickle down on the rest of us.

[Overseas]

52. I agree. And going green requires rebalancing our economy.

They may have been hoping for a 21st century Green FDR like I was.

Hoping that after the Bush Crash and Bush Bailout, Democrats would be leaders again and stand up for the needs of our people rather than preserving and extending corporate rule.

With a desperate population being evicted from their homes, they may have expected the Democrats, at the very least, to band together to give their new president a strong public option on national health security.

Seeing what a mess the Republicans had made of our country, and how low their popularity was with the public (29%) they may have been demoralized by our Democrats honoring them with many seats at the table, while pushing out single payer advocates even though they represented the most efficient system.

To go greener, we need a party willing to defy popular lies and propaganda and push its politicians toward realities on the ground. Medicare has the lowest overhead and highest patient satisfaction. It is also a mixture of public and private elements-- medical care privately delivered between us and our doctors, cost controls publicly administered, accountable to us all. Why would Democrats so easily toss aside the most efficient solution, rather than at least using it as a starting point?

What hope does that give young people that practical but challenging green policies will be fought for rather than tossed out before discussions even begin?

[yurbud]

55. none. It's like being innocent of a crime and your defense attorney makes a plea bargain

for you to get the death penalty.

[Overseas]

62. And the greening could have united the newest Democratic voters

with those of us who remembered discussing sustainable development back in the 70's.

And we could have pitched all those ideas as fiscally responsible (there are both long-term and short-term benefits) with the preferred tip of the hat to the fake Republican strong point. (They haven't been fiscally responsible for ages, but the "New Democrats" --old back in the 90's already-- still want to pretend Republicans still stand for that.)

And I regret not even a Truth & Reconciliation Commission was held to acknowledge how far the Bush Gang pushed us over moral and ethical cliffs that weakened our national security. Could have been a dramatic exposé of how far Republicans had strayed from their second fake strong point-- that they are stronger on national security. (They've usually weakened our national security, and far fewer Republicans have ever served in the military, but the "New Democrats" wanted to pretend that back in the 90's and seem set on wanting to pretend that again.) To do so, though, Democrats would ahve needed to declare that the Republican party was hijacked by war profiteers and needed to regain its moral footing. They'd need to examine how very weak our country looked when we spend more on the military and national security agencies than all other nations combined and still couldn't achieve our goals without committing war crimes.

I think the Truth & Rec could have readied our country for the major change it needs toward a more sustainable economy and a less polluting style of national defense. Seduction, through education and pop culture is far greener than brutal heavy warfare.

We could have been having so much more fun with our 21st Century Green FDR in the White House. The youngsters like doing business. Lots of them are entrepreneurial, most wouldn't be commies. But they also know how small our planet is, and how heavily its ecosystems have been damaged by the brutal practices of previous generations and want to develop more sustainable methods.

We Democrats could all have been working together now, young and old, with the Grotesque Obsolete Plutocrats looking like the regressive dinosaurs that they are. Out of touch with the future. Clawing back to a cruel wasteful past.

[liskddksil]

44. Them youngins love the individual mandate...not

[jobwithout]

45. This is not happening

I wont believe it...I refuse to admit it. Ill keep denying it until there is an (R) in the whitehouse and controlling both chambers of congress. Then ill say it was voter fraud and if none of that works Ill throw my self to the ground and scream.

Seriously people, we cant ignore this or we will lose.

[bvar22]

47. You ain't seen nothin yet.

Wait until Obama & The Democrats FORCE them to BUY worthless Health Insurance.
Better not stand between them and the EXIT.


LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option.
Good luck selling this piece of shit to the America.

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

[Blandocyte]

49. Well, yeah!

When all you hear is propaganda and outright lies about the party coupled with a portayal of the party as weaklings, of course they won't like the image of Dems too much. The fatcats own the media and now control the message.

[Odin2005]

50. This is what happens when Obama pumps us up and then shoves a knife in our back.

We wanted CHANGE, not another corporate patsy.

[RainDog]

53. when you betray a generation of voters, they tend to do that

get rid of the DLC ideology and provide legislation that makes people think it matters if they vote for a democrat and the party could win for the next generation.

instead, the Rahm-Geithner-Nelsons of the democratic party are killing it for the next generation of voters.

too bad if you don't like this. it's the truth. if democrats legislate like republicans, people don't want to vote for them - if they did want republican legislation, they would vote for republicans.

pretty simple.

[Raine]

58. That's right and they will never come back

and I don't blame them. People don't forget or forgive broken promises, being thrown under the bus and betrayal. x(

[treestar]

56. Screw 'em

If they became Republicans, then they are now Republicans.

Let them see how the free market treats them. And don't complain about health care. Let the market take care of it.

[Zenlitened]

57. ***Whoooosh***

Whole thing went soaring over your head, didn't it?

:wow:

[paulk]

61. the 18 to 29 demographic is what won Obama

both the nomination and the general election.

This willingness to throw anyone under the bus, on the part of true believers like yourself, does not bode well for future elections...

[No Elephants]

82. Please see Reply #80.

[AngryAmish]

59. They must be punished

[seeinfweggos]

65. so of the nine people of that age group who bother to vote, we have five?

ok

[mahina]

66. Wonder why, with them and all the rest of us being intentionally lied to 24-7.

We have Olberman and Rachel for an hour or so a day, while Fox spews their nonsense 24 hours and CNN plays wiffle ball on one channel and runs tragedy porn on the other. Facebook doesn't give them news.

[No Elephants]

83. Yep. It's the media. Not the mandate w/o public option or the decision not to prosecute Bushco, or

anything Obama or the Democrats in Congress did or chose not to do.

BTW, I doubt these kids are watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC every day.