General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere are no Sanders movement - GE voting numbers - millenials turnout rate is down and more diverse
https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11/14/how-millennials-voted/
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Who would have thunk it?
Everyone who warned please do not do that!
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I thought the rest of the Democratic voters would make that irrelevant, but I was wrong. Many people were wrong. We failed to do what was needed to secure the election for Hillary Clinton. I blame myself, too, for being too complacent.
I don't necessarily blame millennial voters. I blame all of us for not making absolutely certain enough people would turn out in every state to block Donald Trump. We failed to do that. More's the pity.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Talking with them was useless.
It made the job very difficult.
We gotta find ways around that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)and no amount of narcan was bring them out of the fog.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... still justifying their choices and decisions, and still making excuses.
They're still fighting old fights, picking scabs, stirring up old arguments.
It never stops.
Frankly, I believe they are a distraction that weakens the party. People like that are divisive and only create feelings of ill-will and put a damper on getting the flames of motivation ignited.
They feel entitled, they want special attention and extra considerations that they're not willing to give to others. They are a wet blanket.
In my opinion they're dead-weight. The add nothing to our party and instead are holding us back. We're wasting our time with people like that and we'd be better off just to cut them loose and move on.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)them all.
Remindeds me of Trump.
It's gotta be some sort of condition....
Cha
(297,655 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)who don't normally turn out. Turnouts were down among people who do vote for Democrats when they bother to vote. Even in my precinct in St. Paul, MN, turnout was lower, although we still gave Hillary about 60% of the vote. Even Minnesota was close this year. That should never have happened.
WI, PA and MI were the states where we lost this election. That was absolutely shocking to me. Somehow, we failed in those states to get enough Democratic voters to the polls. Why? I don't know. I'm a local worker, and don't engage in GOTV activities out of state. It's something that needs to be figured out and corrected, though.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)either.
I don't think they could have been convinced either. Not in the environment of that election.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)people would not vote for Trump and didn't work as hard as we could have.
In my own circle of Minnesota friends, there were two people who voted for Jill Stein. I talked to them several times, trying to convince them that was a big mistake. Their answer was, "Well, Hillary will win anyhow, so it's a protest vote." Now, they're horribly dismayed at the outcome. They do understand that they voted foolishly.
In Minnesota, they were right, but just barely. Hillary did win Minnesota. But, right next door, she lost Wisconsin.
We were overconfident, and let that lull us into less action that we should have taken. I've been doing GOTV for decades. The "sometimes" voters are always the target. You can never get them all to the polls, but if you work really hard, you can get some of them to the polls. I don't think they turned out this year, based on my review of my own precinct's vote. I think they simply stayed home and let things happen. That's always their default choice. GOTV should focus on that group, and usually does.
In 2016, we failed. Our overconfidence led to our defeat, I believe.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)That is what I also think happened. Not sure what anyone could have done about that. However, they all still knew what a bigoted, authoritarian piece of shit he was.
Bigotry is a deal breaker.
No matter what one though of Hillary, she was not bigoted.
SharonAnn
(13,778 posts)Famous quote about primaries and the two parties. Democrats fall in love and if their chosen one doesn't win, they often disengage. Republicans will vote for the winner of their primary, whether not is was their chosen candidate.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)There are a few people I work with that supported Hillary, but didn't vote because they were too busy. They were sure that Hillary had the election in the bag and didn't need their vote anyway. Needless to say, they are sick over Trump and regret not voting now.
factfinder_77
(841 posts)Who would have known that being for a green economy "green party" actually would lead us down to the most corrupt, anti-environmental, anti LGBT, anti cultural and anti diverse precedency of all time.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)No one knows what turnout would have been if he had been.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Unfortunately, I'm not.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)You have just read an opinion I hold. I don't need to be psychic to have one of those.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)...
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)When I write on DU, it is my opinion. It says so right in my signature line. Pretty much everything anyone writes here is that person's opinion, unless they're just posting something from somewhere else.
In any case, the election is over. It is finished, and the results are known. Speculation about something that has already occurred is not of much value, really. Just like my opinion.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)And since the title mocks the "Sanders movement" as it relates to the GE turnout, I think it's more than appropriate to point out that he wasn't on the ballot.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Your point is about the primary and how he should have been the nominee.
Therefore, reliving the primary.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Nothing.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)and it was rigged, blah blah blah.
He wasn't on the ballot. The only impact he had on the GE was him allowing his supporters to feel so aggrieved by the Democratic Party that they voted third party.
You wish to discuss his supporters who voted third party in the GE???????
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I in no way want to refight the primary. It was hell. I was a Sanders supporter. I voted for Hillary in the GE. I'd be happy to discuss his supporters who voted 3rd party. My honest opinion is that the years long trashing of Hillary took its toll. I know people who typically vote who didn't vote this time for precisely that reason.
Fuck. I couldn't even get my other half to the polls. Do you know how much of a failure I felt like? I'll never forgive him.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)And I pretty much agree with you.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I badgered them relentlessly before November. Seeing them after the vote, almost none of them bothered. The silver lining, I guess, is that many of them are horrified. Maybe they'll wake the hell up.
I couldn't wait to vote when I was 18. Just happened to be for Bills first term. I don't understand those who can't be bothered. *sigh
LisaL
(44,974 posts)WTF did they think was going to happen if Trump was elected? I guess they are finding out now.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I just hope they smarten up ahead of the midterms. I won't hold my breath though.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)missed it.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and help to educate your fellow DUer. Don't be so damn coy. What purpose does that serve?
boston bean
(36,223 posts)It is really just very mundane to me.
So let me move on and stop with the badgering.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)LexVegas
(6,094 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)hell, I'm happy to learn.
Btw, what in your opinion, was being disrupted?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)mentions Bernie just to be inflammatory. There is nothing even close to that in the article.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)C'mon, Jackie. You hurt my heart.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That'll do.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and not fighting the primaries,but yay, look at where we are?
There is no question Sanders lost. Sanders movement is not so big when it comes to the general populace. I'm a big fan, and I'm still willing to accept that, just as anybody who uses primary numbers or says that Democratic voters rejected him, should be more honest about how the game was played by both candidates. Regardless of whether or not he lost, it is truly unprecedented that a national candidate got so far on private donations. That isn't to blame anybody for that playing field. It's a choice he made, and frankly, had he not made it, he wouldn't have even faired as well because that was kind of part of his brand which propelled him into prominence, but it is still a reality that he was the outsider with far less name recognition. Lost is totally legit. "Rejected" which you didn't use here, granted), is in a whole other category.
But back to Bunnies question though, which was apparently misconstrued. It was, how do the GE numbers have to do with Sanders, given that he wasn't on the ballot in the GE?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)There is no "movement"
It's politics as usual. And there's still the outstanding issue of how we win red states. It's going to have some tough as hell answers and it certainly isn't running super progressive candidates.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)They don't have any friends with money, and that hurts. Not only do they not get any support there, that's a big ass target on their back from industries that find them particularly unfriendly. But the message can catch on, and anything else loses more than half the time to Republicans anyway, so why go a route that has proven to attrit Democratic office holders in all state and federal races over the last 30 years?
QC
(26,371 posts)fishwax
(29,149 posts)Good job, millennials!
cannabis_flower
(3,765 posts)lots of Sanders' supporters were not millenials. I done know the percentages but I am 58 and many of my older friends supported Sanders. Most of them also voted for Hillary.
NoGoodNamesLeft
(2,056 posts)So.fucking.sick.of.seeing.his.name.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Go here and add his name to the keyword list: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)First, the article seems to presuppose that the enthusiasm among millennials for Sanders' candidacy would transfer over to Clinton. Apparently, it didn't. Instead, it seems to have transitioned (among those who did vote) into protest votes for Stein (a five point swing toward third parties is nothing to sneeze at). Second, it's impossible to compare individuals who voted in the primaries with those who voted in the general; how many did one and not the other? What was the overlap? And how many millennials who may have voted for Sanders in the primaries stayed home, either as another form of protest, or simply because they were disheartened by what they perceived in the way in which the primaries were conducted (i.e., to show favortism to the "establishment candidate"--don't shoot the messenger here, this feeling/perception *was* real and *did* have an effect on my cohort).
The sad--and I know that's an understatement--truth is that the appearance of impropriety thanks to the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have turned off a huge portion of that generation for years to come. There's also the fact that, look, we all expected Clinton to win--every single sign was there. A lot of people felt comfortable with their staying home/casting protest votes because we saw the tidings of a landslide. Unfortunately, when people make these sorts of personal decisions, they very rarely consider the hundred monkeys--that is, that if they are feeling/doing something, then there are likely hundreds if not thousands of people who are feeling/doing the same thing: enough to swing an election.
Polls bear this out: millennials are one of the most progressive cohorts around (and have a huge distaste for Republicans, their xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and austerity). At the same time as you have this low voter turnout, you're also seeing literally the largest protests in the history of the united states. And not just one, but in series and rapid succession. Do you really think you could have those kinds of numbers without millennials swelling the ranks?
I think a few lessons here, are: 1) millennials have no party loyalty; they support the candidate, not the party. 2) Millennials are vindictive, especially when it comes to perceived slights. 3) Millennials are extremely skeptical of anything they perceive to be "establishment" (conspiracy theories run like wildfire through my cohort; they don't "trust The Man." 4) Millennials are more likely to take their activism to the streets than to the ballot boxes. Take it or leave it, but I think these things need to be at least acknowledged. I think reaching out to millennials should be much easier than, say, reaching out to the blue-collar rustbelt worker who has let their animosity toward minorities fester and swell as their jobs get cut and their paycheck gets slashed (i.e., the people who apparently were instrumental in actively swinging this election toward 45*).
Then, there's the structural clusterf*ck that is our "representative" democracy at this moment in history. We've had a ticking timebomb sitting enshrined in law for 87 years: the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Millennials are right, the fix is in. This one ruling destroyed any semblance of representation and skewed the electoral college in a radical way. This Act explains why Clinton could get such a commanding popular vote victory, and still lose the EC. Millennials are right, even if they might not know exactly why: the fix *is* in. They feel like they're not represented in popular elections--and they're right. And this feeling of disenfranchisement translates into a high likelihood of throwing in either a protest vote, or not voting at all. Getting this Act repealed should be a #1 priority for every progressive, and I think it's a movement with the potential to really capture, harness, and use the unique political tendencies of millennials. The fact is: gerrymandering is the reason the House is so far out of the reach of progressives, and the EC is responsible for giving us two of the least-qualified presidents in the history of this nation. These two facts play a huge role in why millennials are so turned-off to politics, but are so very willing to take to the streets. Don't blame us (nothing will get us to turn on you faster). Use us.
Please note: I voted for Sanders in the primaries, and Clinton in the general. Most of my interactions are with people from my cohort, and I have never seen so many of them paying attention to politics as in recent months, nor so active. There's a sleeping giant here, folks. Again, this sleeping giant *can* be reached with the right strategy, and playing the blame game ain't it.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Wouldn't they be disappointed? Dejected? Less interested in the choices?
May also help explain the 5% shift to third party of those who were interested, which is the dif between Clinton % and Obama (while rep support remained the same).
Rex
(65,616 posts)Blue Idaho
(5,057 posts)The Millenials I know are more than happy to drop one party, product, or service for another at the first sign of dissatisfaction. Didn't have a great cup of coffee this morning? Fine, I'll go to a different coffee shop. Sign up for cable or satellite service? No thanks, I'll use the internet to get just the programming I want. My primary candidate didn't win? I'll go find someone else to support that fits my alt-tribal gestalt.
Is there anything really wrong with this? I dunno. It may be short sighted in terms of immediate outcomes but they seem to think more about what a politician can do for them rather than thinking about what they can do for our Democracy.
KPN
(15,650 posts)nothing about Bernie Sanders, yet you decide Bernie needs to stand out as the key phrase in your thread.
Bernie wasn't in the GE. Bernie didn't lose the GE. Stop dividing.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)and i can assure you they worked to get hrc elected....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And guess what? Neither is Hillary Clinton.
Time to move on.