Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dchill
(38,546 posts)
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... another video that's as positive as this one. That was looking straight into the face of the future! Each and everyone of them were so clear-headed and well spoken.
I want to hug each and ever one of them!!! 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)One thing that struck me was their repeated notion that Sanders is the first to care about poor people, the first care about environment -- a once in a lifetime candidate. This will the first or second GE in which these kids have participated...
Anyway, very cool.
My son was in that crowd. I sent him a very cool Bernie Sanders t-shirt for the occasion.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Maybe it can become a movement that lasts.
vanlassie
(5,690 posts)SujiwanKenobee
(290 posts)Yet, didn't some DUer recently post that these Bernie gatherings are all "carefully staged" and "planned from the top" with "too small venues" so as to give the illusion of large crowds? Photo shopped crowd imagery? Rented actors? Trucked in Bernie Bros? The desire of some to denigrate this movement is quite palpable.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)
Sancho
(9,070 posts)very few of them have suffered social injustice - and many have more family resources than the average American.
Their hearts are sympathetic. They will go to a rally and they know how to stand in line. About 10% actually vote in a primary:
They are definitely economically driven (which is one reason Bernie resonates wth them), but most are not socially committed (like missionaries, Peace Corps, etc.). They will do service projects and benefit from the experience. They are very international. They are politically naive. They've heard of Bernie, but often know little else about political history in general.
Here in Florida we are much more diverse - about 1/3 were born out of the US. Much larger proportions are FTIC, many more are minority. Our college students don't see Bernie as positively, because they (and their relatives) see the need for trade agreements, a path to citizenship, and social justice as more important than economics. Many come from countries in Europe or South America or Asia with various "socialistic" governments - yes they have universal health care, but the immigrants are still running from those systems.
My wife and I are educators (40 years) and we see young adults coming along every day. Bernie might get a few to register and get interested, which is good for Democracy. There are not enough of these type students (obviously) to win a primary or election.
In the 1960s, 18-24s got the vote (age reduced from 21 to 18) and voted over 30%. (26th Amendment; 1970). Now it averages between 10-20%.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)which is one reason Bernie was not successful. He was too excited and failed on realism.
There's are places and times to be value driven - and also times that empirical evidence is relevant.
Your reaction is inappropriate - why don't you go out and try to get some of those kids to vote?
Instead you attack the messenger.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Yours are utter bullshit. I wouldn't have said that if you hadn't just said 'Lots of people don't like facts...' as a retort to someone else.
And bullshit is a very light way to put it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This primary has proven that the college students attending Bernie's rallies have rarely voted at much more than a 10% rate.
Meanwhile, this is an old fact that social scientists have often discussed. It's called "non-ignorable non-respondents" - in other words, lots of people don't go to rallies or answer polls, but vote in larger percentages. The size and enthusiasm of political crowds are not reliable indicators of voting behavior.
Here's a journal reference that describes the wild crowds that caused Geraldine Ferraro to think she had lots of support as a VP candidate - and was disappointed at the ballot box.
Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions
Howard Wainer
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
College students love a cause and they are definitely interested in someone talking about the cost of tuition. Instead of attacking me - why don't you explain why those 18-24 year-olds don't vote? It appears that about 1 in 10 of those in line at the rallies actually show up at the poll.
With the retired folks, very few show up at rallies and 50-60% vote!
You can call me names, but the numbers are easy to see. There are voter registration drives on most college campuses. It doesn't look like they are working very well.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)If you could cite a single document based on statistical evidence collected during a Democratic primary or caucus that suggests that this statement has merit:
"This primary has proven that the college students attending Bernie's rallies have rarely voted at much more than a 10% rate."
I, for one, would be very impressed. For starters, no state - none, period, releases information regarding how people of a given age voted. Some may release broad, generalized demographic information, but, for example, Minnesota caucuses do not request age information from attendees.
So the only information that might support demographic evaluation of how members of age groups voted in 2016 Democratic primaries and caucuses, and in what numbers, would be independent exit polls. And post primary/caucus exit polls, conducted well, tend to be roughly OK in predicting outcomes in a broad way, but aren't accurate enough to measure demographic information to a precise extent.
The general assertion that college students who have attended a primary or caucus political rally only voted in the specific primary or caucus at around a rate of 10% of the attendees is bizarre. Where, again, does this information come from?
I mean, you really just cited an academic document published in 1989, apparently focusing on a person who has never been a party primary/caucus candidate for a nomination to run as a party's candidate for the Presidency, to back up your assertion that, 31-32 years later, this '10%' figure of yours is valid. A substantial portion of that 31.8 year-old document deals with Ms. Ferraro's own subjective perception of support for her general election candidacy for the Vice Presidency based solely on the number of voters she believed to have attended rallies that she was present at. The subject of the document/study so dissimilar to the topic of the 2 major candidates for the 2016 Democratic nomination for the Presidency as to be utterly irrelevant to the subject.
I know that you don't possess actual evidence to back up your assertion, because it is fundamentally wrong. The 18-24 demographic, based on well-regarded exit polling (again, not precise, but in the ball park) has gone heavily for Bernie Sanders in almost every primary and caucus (almost, but not quite, in Florida) so far, and the numbers of people in that demographic participating in the Democratic caucus and primary process during this campaign likely represents the largest turnout among young people in any Democratic or Republican primary process, ever.
In order to validate the claim you are making, specifically regarding the degree of correlation between attendance of Bernie Sanders's political rallies by college students and the percentage of college student attendees who later voted for him in the relevant primary or caucus, you'd need this:
1) An accurate list, with identifying information, of every college student attendee at every political rally for Bernie Sanders in 2015 and 2016.
2) Then, an elimination of duplicate counts for college students who attended more than one such rally. The identifying information would have to be very clear - names written the same way and fully legible.
3) Then, a complete and accurate list of names of all college students who voted in all Democratic primaries and caucuses. College students, especially first-year students, often are legitimately eligible to vote in a state different than where they attend college. You could not assume that a college student who attended a political rally in Florida, for example, and whose name did not show up on the Florida list of primary voters, did not vote. Relying on such an assumption would result in distorted results.
4) Let's assume for the moment that all you want to know is whether they voted at all in a state Democratic primary or caucus, not how they voted... Otherwise you'd have the monumental job of linking all of the data obtained in the prior steps to the identity of the party each person voted for.
If you have been exposed to such data, I'd be really impressed. Especially because, in order for it to even exist, massive breaches of state primary/caucus privacy regulations would have taken place, especially remarkable for the states of Iowa and Nevada, as there are no released record of even the actual number of voters in the caucuses.
But, consider this - in a general sense, if only 10% of college students who attended Bernie Sanders political rallies actually voted in a primary or caucus, the numbers of 18-24 year-olds who have thus far turned out for him would have to be almost exclusively non-college students. That's based on the reported numbers of attendees at Bernie Sanders rallies, media estimates of young attendees, and exit polling. Not very accurate, but accurate enough to indicate that the 10% figure is nowhere near high enough. Of course, I'm using 2016 numbers, focusing on Bernie Sanders, not Geraldine Ferraro, and the subject is the Democratic contest for the nomination of the candidate for the office of the President, so I can see how I might get all that wrong.....
polly7
(20,582 posts)by the thousands supporting him?
Do you just pick and choose the ones showing the most white faces to comment on?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)His 'facts' are totally wrong. Blatantly so.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)OK - you use a census bureau Congressional election chart, which excludes all Presidential election years! to comment on youth voting in a discussion involving the 2016 Presidential election. Why? Either you're remarkably stupid or did it deliberately. Take a look at the spreadsheet at this link (which isn't a dead one, as compared to the link at the bottom text line of the chart you selected): http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/p20/562-rv/table-05-2.xls
That census bureau spreadsheet indicates that 53.4% of 18- to 24-year-eligible voters in the 2008 election reported voting. So... your conclusions are not only utterly wrong, but I suspect might be deliberately so. Look at your first chart (which is inaccurate also, but not absurdly so - where did it come from?). Do you notice the spikes and dips? In American elections, turnout is much lower among all demographic groups during non-Presidential election years. I mean, that's a chart you found somewhere that explicitly demonstrates the severe flaws of the other chart you found somewhere.
All I'd like to know is this - deliberate or mistake? If you're a person of honor, and it was indeed a mistake, then you'd likely respond indicating so. If it was deliberate, then you aren't a person of honor and would either respond falsely claiming that it was a mistake or duck out completely right now.
Although your assertions full of nonsense (especially the racist ones), it would take me a couple of hours to demonstrate exactly how. Still, there is one that I'd really like to ask about:
Do Florida college students actually spend time thinking about the need for international trade agreements? You say they do. I suspect that, before this Democratic primary, during which Bernie Sanders has discussed them and their consequences, very few college students even knew that they existed or had any opinion on them whatsoever. I've met lots of college students, and I've never, ever heard one discussing trade agreements (until 2016.) I think you're just making that up.
I'm not an educator in the formal sense, but I have many good friends who are. I don't know a single one, teaching at the high school or college/university level, who would present a chart without citation, in any context, to use as evidence for an assertion. They see that kind of thing all of the time from students, resulting in lower grades and more lectures on 'cite where you got this from!!' It's especially a big deal now when so much information is available via the Internet. So I'm quite confused about how you, who claim to be a 40-year veteran educator, would do it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)The "percents" are also a little confound by the population - did it include the 1/3 minority excluded because of prison sentences or 30-40 million "undocumented".
At any rate, I included the comparison with different ages on purpose. You can argue you want about 2008 - but the fact is that the 18-24 is the LOWEST percent group back to the voting age going to 18 (1970).
Also, you can argue about 2008 all you want, but most primary data clearly shows that young people attended rallies, but voted in very small numbers in 2016. It will different from state to state, but almost always it was the smallest demographic reported.
Yes, LOTS of people in Florida are interested in trade agreements, which is one reason that Hillary has done well with immigrants and all through the Sun Belt. It is one often cited reason for supporting her.
It you go to almost any community college or university - in fact many HS classes - where they talk about international business and entrepreneurship - there are lots of discussions about trade agreements and various international regulations and restrictions. It might not be a topic in English Lit or algebra. With 1/3 of our student born outside of the US, and many, many people doing business internationally, trade agreements often come up.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)and learn about the remarkable phenomena of high levels of interest among high school and college students in the subject of trade agreements between the United States and other nations.
As atypical as that would be among students in other states, I would expect this intriguing aspect of the Florida education system to be well-publicized and studied.
Another thing I don't hear from my educator friends - the words 'fact' and 'facts.' They know that students largely forget 'facts' after a period of time, but concepts endure. I'm not making this up - I've had lots of discussions with good friends who are teachers, over the years, and this is a common theme. The big challenge tends to be demonstrating how things that people often accept as 'facts' are really just perspectives that some people have more or less tacitly agreed to accept as true. Actual facts represent a minuscule fraction of information people consider to be facts.
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly asserted in just a few pieces of writing on DU, that a number of things are facts. You even condition the statements in ways like this:
... "but the fact is that the 18-24 is the LOWEST percent group back to the voting age going to 18 (1970)."
you wrap your assertions up with numbers to try to make your 'facts' seem more, well, factual. And you don't cite any parties who have established these facts, you just declare that they are.
I don't think I've said anything like 'it's a fact' for years and years. It's a lousy way to make a point, and just because I think something is true doesn't mean it is. I've experienced way too many instances when that my belief that something was a fact turned out to be a quite flawed perspective.
Researchers in just about every discipline almost never use the word 'fact,' either. The serious ones explicitly state the assumptions they believe their conclusions are based on, and invite the the people who examine their research to consider potential conditions that would invalidate their conclusions.
If only more people knew you, it would seem, all that would be unnecessary...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)From the University of Southern California:
What about all those raging Sanders supporters like the young people in custom Bernie t-shirts who stood in line to see him speak at the Wiltern Theater in Koreatown last month?
"His strongest of support by far is among young people," says Schnur. "But young people vote in much smaller percentages than older generations."
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Schnur acknowledges that Sanders supporters are more enthusiastic — he was greeted as a rock star in Los Angeles — but argues that doesn't necessarily translate into more votes.
"You don't get to vote more because you care more," he said. "A halfhearted vote counts just as much."
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)You are, either because you're a narcissist who believes that the only things that are true are the things you say are (like Donald Trump), or, because you're completely incompetent, massively misleading people on DU with bullshit. If you're doing it here, that means you do it a lot, and that means I will call you out on it. I won't argue that you don't have a right to make shit up and present it as fact, but I sure as hell will call you out on it when it happens.
I started by asking you to back up a bunch of statements of 'fact,' as you explicitly claimed, with any kind of actual evidence.
The big one that I was mystified by was a claim that you presented, explicitly, as 'fact' (by, well, using the words 'fact' and 'facts'), to wit:
Among college students who have attended Bernie Sanders rallies, only approximately 10% have gone on to vote in Democratic caucuses or primaries.
So I asked you one straight question - where did this 'fact' come from? You haven't so much as hinted that you noticed my question. You dodged it and then threw a bunch of other stuff at me.
Amazingly, you linked to a preview of an academic document published in 1989 ('download it for $29.99' - it took a bit of digging, but I found it without shelling out the bucks), the subject of which was the gap between Geraldine Ferraro's perception of support as a candidate for the Vice Presidency based on her perception of political rally crowd size, and the actual level of support Walter Mondale received in the GE. It's actually a really crappy study, as the election wasn't about her at all - it was simply about the (sadly) high level of popularity of Ronald Reagan.
It is a fact that, at least since 1950, young voters don't vote to the same extent that older ones do. I don't have the slightest issue with that. It's correct. But that's not what you were claiming. You made claims of 'fact' in very specific terms, about various things relating to young voters.
Also you used an old census bureau chart (and some other chart that had no source citation at all) to support a claim of much lower 18-24 age demographic voting percentage than is even remotely in the neighborhood of accurate. Because, it omitted this little thing that happens every 4 years called a presidential election. I mean, that's just ridiculous. So I asked you whether you used this chart knowingly to misrepresent stuff (I suspect so, since the chart isn't actually available at the link indicated, and you've probably used it many times), or if you really didn't know.
You didn't address that either.
So - you are either a serial liar or utterly incompetent. I say this having asked multiple times for citations or clarifications on the points mentioned above, as well as several other flawed assertions of 'fact'. This means that every time I see one of your posts in which you assert something as fact, I will read it, and if it's bullshit, I will call you out again. If I do see something similar to what you posted in this thread, I will then conclude that you have a habit of lying, and will make sure everyone you are responding to knows. 'Cuz, like I said, I won't argue that you can't make up bullshit and present is as fact. You also have the right to bear the consequences of such activity. Every time I see one of your posts, I'll be there to ensure that you have the opportunity to exercise the latter right.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)But I gave you a link showing the same fact from California cited by a profesessor that I saw in Florida.
Like lots of Blemmings, you seem to think that personal attacks and bad language and having tantrums makes you right. You are still wrong, but now you also reveal you are rude.
Bernie will lose, in part because his followers don't vote - especially the youngest voters. I hope that is simple enough for you.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)So I asked you one straight question - where did this 'fact' come from? You haven't so much as hinted that you noticed my question. You dodged it and then threw a bunch of other stuff at me.
SC Primary: 7% 17-24 years old
Mass Primary: 19%
Alabama: 14%
Oklahoma: 7%
Florida: 9%
On and on and on...facts. Young people don't vote - I didn't computer the EXACT %. At best it's between 10% and 15% in 2016 primaries so far..
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The CNN exit polls that you link to do not purport to show the percentage of eligible voters in age groups who voted in a primary or caucus. They purport to show how the total number of voters were distributed by age group.
For example, CNN's exit polling of Florida's Democratic primary at this link:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/FL/Dem
has three 'age' graphics. They broke up age groups three different ways - the simplest is the one that contains two age groups: 18-44 and 45 and older. The age group 18-44 comes in as 35% and the 45 and older group as 65%. That doesn't mean that 35% of all people eligible to cast votes in the Florida Democratic primary, aged 18 to 44, turned out the cast votes. It also doesn't mean that 65% of the people eligible to cast votes did.
It means that CNN's exit polling indicates that 35% of people who voted in the primary were age 18-44 and 65% were age 45 and over. That's why, when you add the 35 to the 65, you get 100.
The most complex graphic splits up respondent's ages into 6 groups. When you add up the percentages, you get... 100 percent. And 18-24 year-old respondents represented 9% of polled Democratic Primary voters. On the other end, respondents aged 65+ represented 25% of polled Democratic Primary voters. So, Floridians aged 18-24 - 9% of the total, Floridians 65 and older, 25% of the total.
Now, those numbers don't mean anything without some idea of how many 18-24 year-olds and how many people aged 65+ there are in Florida.
Thankfully, the U.S. Census Bureau does keep relatively good track of stuff like this.
Here's an interesting place to start:
https://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2010comp.html
According to the 2010 census, the national median age was 36.7.
However, the State of Florida had the 6th largest median age of 40.7. Hm...
The State of Florida kindly publishes U.S. Census information about Florida on this site:
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/
This is the information that we need to make sense of the percentages in the CNN exit polls. And, according to this data, the 2010 population of 18-24 year-olds was 1,789,657. And people aged 65+? 3,259,602. With a total reported population of 18,801,310, people aged 18 to 24 represented 9.25% of the population of Florida and people aged 65+ represented 17.3%.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Florida had almost twice as many people aged 65+ than people aged 18-24.
And, just for kicks, the 2015 population of Florida, as estimated by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research in its April 1, 2015 Florida Estimates of Population 2015 is skewed even more heavily toward those aged 65+ (up a full percentage point to 18.6%).
PDF link: http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/PopulationEstimates2015.pdf
So... If the CNN exit polls were relatively accurate, and the census was relatively accurate, it is correct that voters aged 18-24 voted in the Democratic Primary at a substantially lower rate than their representation in the general population of Florida, compared to people aged 65+. Instead of just over half of the 65+ demographic's turnout, it was more like just over 1/3 of the 65+ demographic's turnout. Taking all of this evidence together, it is reasonable to conclude that eligible voters in Florida aged 18-24 appear to turn out for the Democratic primary at levels approximately 25% lower than people aged 65+.
But one very important little piece of information is also useful to consider. People who would be 18 years old at the time of the 2016 general election but were 17 at the time of the primary could not vote in Florida's Democratic primary. And the primary was almost 8 months before the general election. How do you suppose that policy affects the primary voting behavior of 18 year-olds? Oh. And even if you were going to be 18 at the time of the primary but you were 17 on February 16... You couldn't register.
Add into that the fact that no 18-21 year-old at the time of the Florida Democratic primary had ever, presumably, voted previously in a political party's Presidential primary, and you get pretty close to explaining the disparity simply by way of lack of experience.
No, your assessments are utterly wrong. I mean, not even close. The CNN exit poll that you refer to had 1,659 respondents. 5.4% of them were aged 18-24. Using 2010 census date, which probably over-counts the 2016 population of 18-24 year-olds compared to older Floridians, 18-24 year-olds comprised 9.25% of the population of Florida. How do you get to 'only 9% of 18-24 year-olds voted in the Democratic primary?' You can't. These aren't the data you're looking for.
You're dead wrong, and you just don't care. If you've read this far, you're still exasperated trying to work out how this clueless guy gets all of this data so wrong, since you are obviously right. That you're wrong, and wrong by a long shot, won't factor into your consideration.
I'm wrong about things all the time. It's called being human. And when I am, I acknowledge that I am. However, recognizing that the CNN exit poll on March 15 could be substantially off with respect to estimating age group primary participation, and that the Census is never perfectly accurate, and that it's data from the 2010 Census (still by far the best information available concerning the present population of eligible voters in Florida), I'm pretty much not wrong at all about this.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)are you prepared to apologize for your tantrum?
Then look carefully at what I said.
I'll make it simple. Young people (generally 18-24) vote in percentages lower than other age demographics.
That has been true for several decades. It's true in primaries including the current one. A reasonable estimate so far in this 2016 Democratic primary is 10-15% of the voters were in that approximate range. Obviously there is variability by state, type of election, etc. Sometimes young people have done better, but it's rare.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
You can engage in Bernie math if you want - but it won't change the FACT!
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of published examples of voting age demographics. I gave you a couple, which clearly confused you and sent you off into an irrational fugue.
Instead of personal insults, you should try and understand that one reason Bernie is losing is that he spends time and money on a demographic group that doesn't pay off. As the professor from USC alluded - a few enthusiastic people don't count as much as lots of boring people who vote! Bernie should have taken lessons from Geraldine Ferraro!
The OP and video is a prime example of great emotion and likely poor voter results. Did you notice the example interviews of enthusiastic people who could never vote for Bernie in this primary, but came to the rally?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)that what you really kind of meant is that instead of the very specific stuff you've said, you've instead made more general statements.
Here's the last thing I'll touch:
Your quote:
"With the retired folks, very few show up at rallies and 50-60% vote!"
Florida Democratic and Republican primaries, 2016:
2010 census - population of Florida aged 65+: 3,259,602
Total votes, 2016 Democratic primary: 1,702,878
Total votes, 2016 Republican primary: 2,355,183
CNN exit polling that you linked me to:
Democratic primary, 65+ demographic percent of total votes: 25%
Republican primary, 65+ demographic percent of total votes: 29%
Translate those percentages into votes:
Democratic primary: 425,720
Republican primary: 683,003
Total 2016 Democratic and Republican primary votes cast by people age 65+:
1,108,723
Percent of total 2010 U.S. Census 65+ population that voted in both 2016 primaries:
34%
The Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research publishes an official state estimate of future demographics:
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/
The 2020 65+ projected population, as of 2015, is 4,465,169, a massive expansion of this demographic of 37%.
The Office of Economic and Demographic Research also published another official state estimate of Florida demographics and population as of April 1, 2015, conducted by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (same link)
Its estimate of the 2015 65+ population? 3,685,624. 5 year increase of 13.1%. More conservative than the other projection.
If, instead of the 2010 census count, we use the University of Florida's Bureau of Economics and Business Research estimate of the 2015 65+ population, that brings the 65+ participation level in the 2016 primaries down to:
30.1%
If we use the age of 65 as the likely retirement age for Floridians (given the large retiree population of Florida, including many younger, relatively well-off retirees, that might be high, but it seems a sensible age point to go with),
retired folks in Florida probably participated in both the Republican and Democratic 2016 caucuses at a combined level of approximately 30%.
Not 50-60%. Not even close. You have no clue.
I'm done wasting my time with you.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Just to start with, the vast majority of Florida voters in the 50+ range vote by mail. In the last primary more than a million Democrats before the primary date. They are not subject to exit polls. In my county (the densest in Fl), the local ES often states that older voters participate at over the 50% rate for most elections - and as high as 70% for high profile races.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-02-29/voters-in-florida-begin-early-voting-in-crucial-primary
http://www.news-press.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/15/staggering-absentee-ballots-early-voting-numbers-2016-florida-primary/81835746/
You can debate details all you want, but it's a FACT that the older age groups vote at a much higher rate than the college age.
I'll let you take a course at your local community college (or spend a few days in a library) if you want to know the exact numbers for a particular state or election.
Meanwhile - the OP was a college rally for Bernie - and I pointed out the FACT that Bernie was spending lots of time and money on rallies for people who are lousy voters!! It's a strategic disaster.
I'll point out one example - one of the speakers just drove from a neighboring state - so they could not VOTE for Bernie, but they were at the rally!! There are other obvious issue with other speakers highlighted in the video.
Typical, and illustrative that young people don't vote!!
bjo59
(1,166 posts)You can't even attend a community college today without taking on thousands of dollars of debt (and they were free in the not-to-distant past). I guess you don't know that private colleges are in the business of admitting students from low income families and giving them a "free ride" the first year, then each subsequent year lowering their grant awards because the colleges know that with each passing year parents (or the students themselves) will feel obligated to take on the debt to make up the difference because the students have already completed many credit hours towards their degrees. It's a total scam and since when have non-profit institutions of higher learning been in the business of scamming students and their parents? Since tuition costs have skyrocketed (increasing year after year just like medical costs climb year after year), that's when. I find it totally disingenuous that you can write so much about how these are privileged kids with an easy life. What jobs are they all going to find after they graduate? Are you not aware that almost all of the new jobs that are created now are in minimum wage sector? And finally, you couldn't have written this in response to other Bernie rallies, such as the one in the city near Allentown, Pennsylvania. Looking at the faces in that massive crowd, it would have been impossible for you to stereotype them as white kids without a care in the world.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)mostly caused by two reasons:
1.) state governments have drastically reduced support per capita for higher education
2.) many more people attend college as a per cent of the population
As such, higher education and even k12 public education funding is to little. Combined with higher costs for technology, facilities, and more teachers - education in general is struggling.
The GOP has also been trying to privatize education so they can make a buck off of it, which has been a problem - and all the Democrats (Bernie, Obama, Hillary, Warren, etc.) have spoken out about the banks, etc. taking advantage of college students and charter schools ripping off the public.
Being aware of the issue is not a solution.
Obama has actually tried to improve things, but Arnie Duncan has not been very effective.
valerief
(53,235 posts)we Boomers did.
findrskeep
(713 posts)and there's no stopping that movement. Of course there will be hold outs...the trick is to observe and not absorb
Eventually everyone will get on board. You can't stop evolution. And progressives always win the end.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)these young people, and many who are not so young (like me0.
Win, lose, or draw, what he is putting out there and what he is managing to get through to people is IMPORTANT.
Bernie, to me, is the candidate who is talking the real changes we need to make, and yes, I will undoubtedly support the nominee but I truly think the nominee must take into account the strength and power of this movement and the rightness of many if not most of its stances.
These are people who only want what Democrats have traditionally wanted. Why don't w act together to give it to hem, to make sure they have it? So that children don't go hungry, seniors don't despair, sick people actually go to the doctor for a change, our country lives in peace and prosperity, people who want one have a job, CLIMATE CHANGE (which threatens to end or drastically alter human life within a century or even much less) is addressed vigorously right now.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Hillary will ignore this massive demographic at her peril. Maybe not in the upcoming election. Because she will have enough nose holders that will put her over the top because of her competition whether it is Trump or Cruz. Lord help her if the GOP had even a shred of a competent charismatic leader running. Lucky for her their pool is so shallow based on years of squeezing out moderates.
This movement will only grow. And if Hillary insists on siding with the elite class holding all the wealth, and goes on with the tired old meme that America is too poor of a country to afford to take care of its citizens the way other democracies do, but on the other hand will push to spend billions more on some new war to sharpen her talons and war-prez cred, she just may not last eight years, and go down in history as the last desperate aristocrat politician clinging to the old ways of catering to the greedy in hope they will maybe trickle down a little over the rest of America. Or more like, convince herself of that disproven strategy to cover any remorse of taking all the kickbacks she will get to set her family up after she leaves office.
And the Democrat Party will undergo a civil war with Queen Hillary telling us all to eat cake. Is that what those that are determined to vote for her want? Because thats coming if she wins.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)In particular, your first sentence.
The really interesting thing, to me, is that we're not seeing a generation of young people seeking a different kind of life through drugs, sex and music, like Vietnam war-era counterculture.
These young people are discovering the ways in which the composition and behavior of their government can have enormous effects on their futures. And what are they doing? Voting, discussing politics and policies, and learning how they can best assert influence over a system of government that has become dominated by the requirements of the wealthy.
I know some ex-hippies, and they tend to speak of those days with reluctance and embarrassment. Basically boiling down to 'damn was I stupid.' I don't think the same will come of the political awakening that Bernie Sanders largely bears credit for.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)It is, really and truly, astonishing.
Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)Thanks for the thread, Donkees. 
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)out in the rain literally brought tears to my eyes. Absolutely incredible, especially contrasting it with tRump rallies. A whole lotta decent, peace-loving young people. Love 'em all!
K&R 
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
