Skip to main content

Reliable Democratic voters, 2000-2080.

Millennials (those born roughly since 1980 or so, depending on your definition) are the most progressive generation since FDR.  

That's the headline from this fascinating infographic from Pew, which examines the voting preferences of various generational cohorts over the last two decades.  We've heard this before of course.  Pew grouped voters into categories not based solely on birth year, but also on the year in which a voter turned 18 -- noting under what President this occurred (fascinating concept).  They then looked across the last 10 elections to see where deviations from the national average occurred.  

Takeways --
1) The obvious lede -- every election Millennials have voted in, they've skewed Democratic. Almost as important?  Ditto for young Gen Xers (who turned 18 under Clinton) -- in every election except 2004 (when they skewed GOP) and 2000 (when they tracked with national averages), they skew Democratic as well.  

2) Millennials and young Gen Xers deviated from the norm in 11 of 12 opportunities.  This wasn't the case for all cohorts, many of whom often followed (or more likely, made up) the overall national average.  Not these kids.  They've happily departed, election after election.  They're not falling in line with the average.

3) Fascinating difference between Gen Xers who came of age under Reagan/Bush vs. those who came of age under Clinton.  The former group (today age 38-49) skewed Republican in 7 of 10 elections, and Democratic in only one (their earliest election in 1994).  But the Clinton group (today age 30-37) skewed Democratic in 5 of 7 elections and skewed Republican in only one.  Powerful argument that this is the fault line: voters age 37 and younger, vs. those 38 and older.  Not Gen X vs. Millennial.  Everyone born after Star Wars came out is basically a Democrat.

4) The idea that young, idealistic, naive voters tend to side with progressives until they age into mature, worldly realists and start voting for conservatives seems to be (at least partially) debunked by this chart.  Only the Reagan/Bush Gen Xers exhibit anything like this behavior.  Other groups were either a) more consistent over time, or b) inconsistent but in unpredictable ways, not just "older = more conservative."

Some limitations of note:
1) The chart looks only at "likely voters in pre-election polls," not actual returns.  

2) The actual size of each voting bloc is unclear, nor is the precise degree to which it deviated from an election's average.  We do know, of course, that the Millennial generation is huge compared with Gen X, so its tastes and preferences are magnified.  

3) There is obvious ambiguity involved.  How much deviation was enough to earn a colored box is not clearly spelled out. Expressing each election as a binary "departed/matched the national average" is a useful (if imperfect) way to chart it, however.

4) The chart doesn't go back early enough to compare voting behavior over long voting lives for multiple groups.  

In short, this chart seems to confirm much of what we've been talking about for years -- Millennials seem to consistently prefer progressive ideals, and predictably vote for Democratic candidates that (theoretically) espouse those ideals.  This is not changing, and it's a bit of an historical aberration.

If you were a Republican strategist, this is just more heartburn.  It's yet another reminder that our voters are going to be around a lot longer than their voters, and mobilizing them to get to the polls is 90% of the battle every election going forward.  They already believe what we believe, and they've voted the way we've voted.  The trend shows no sign of slowing, and history provides no reason to think that it will reverse itself anytime soon.

 * * * * * * * * * * * *

Closing thought: The bottom of the chart seems to beg for an additional row -- for whatever generation will follow Millennials ("Generation Z" or the "Homeland Generation" or "Gen Next" or whatever pithy label ultimately sticks).  Some folks have the oldest members of this generation around age 16 now; others think they're under 10.  Either way, in the next 2-3 elections -- soon -- we're going to be talking about them.  What will their preferences be?  Are they rebelling against the views of the generation that preceded them (as personified by a parent, older sibling, etc.) or adopting and evolving similar beliefs?  And what can we be doing today to ensure that they continue and amplify the trend of rallying behind progressive thinking and voting?

Rec list?  Hey thanks team.  I'm a sucker for a slick infographic.  You too?  Then please enjoy the following from PBS' Sid the Science kid.  And you're welcome.

Originally posted to Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 08:31 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


I'm from generation...

0%39 votes
2%122 votes
7%448 votes
26%1600 votes
17%1025 votes
13%782 votes
16%966 votes
8%485 votes
7%474 votes

| 5943 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (293+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, political mutt, War on Error, GDbot, optimusprime, Susan from 29, pat of butter in a sea of grits, mookins, librarisingnsf, hulibow, boran2, a2nite, TheDuckManCometh, fumie, wayoutinthestix, offgrid, bleeding blue, Pupmonkey, elwior, zinger99, Glacial Erratic, whenwego, gizmo59, roses, Crashing Vor, CwV, Denver11, asterkitty, Raggedy Ann, Tool, TDDVandy, edsbrooklyn, DavidMS, maybeeso in michigan, voicemail, blue jersey mom, gramofsam1, anyname, scott5js, millwood, lcrp, nirbama, tofumagoo, mconvente, Involuntary Exile, eeff, TomP, Lilith, Radiowalla, markthshark, smugbug, worldlotus, MartyM, Liberal Of Limeyland, gloriana, SCFrog, The Word, jeanette0605, ichibon, NoMoreLies, DRo, NBBooks, JeffW, SheilaKinBrooklyn, llbear, la urracca, tb92, maggid, blue aardvark, thomask, Cassandra Waites, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, VTCC73, blueoregon, moviemeister76, Ice Blue, Assaf, LSmith, tgypsy, OldDragon, ksuwildkat, VPofKarma, davidincleveland, SteelerGrrl, Front Toward Enemy, doroma, deepeco, citizenx, sfbob, wildweasels, scribeboy, tuesdayschilde, Lujane, JBL55, bloomer 101, Gurnt, wader, sulthernao, Radical Faith, Shockwave, Nulwee, ItsaMathJoke, greycat, asm121, NYFM, Aaa T Tudeattack, sawgrass727, Libby Shaw, tommyfocus2003, chimene, Odysseus, ekgrulez1, dansk47, Chaddiwicker, doingbusinessas, Bernie68, BachFan, snazzzybird, Byron from Denver, bbctooman, Chinton, AoT, wu ming, rmabelis, highacidity, kevinpdx, BlueJessamine, prfb, MBramble, Themistoclea, camlbacker, avsp, Prinny Squad, MadGeorgiaDem, Jay C, Railfan, dotdash2u, janmtairy, cwsmoke, Lost and Found, Chi, puakev, confitesprit, FindingMyVoice, Matt Esler, Brown Thrasher, devis1, yawnimawke, peachcreek, Wendy Slammo, enhydra lutris, Brian82, ehavenot, WisVoter, Desert Rose, BaritoneWoman, bronte17, KayCeSF, Jim Domenico, Wary, Matt Z, gmats, OregonWetDog, Eddie L, EdSF, earthling1, jaf49, dewtx, BarackStarObama, blueyedace2, tonyahky, myrmecia gulosa, Cronesense, Dumbo, leonard145b, Chirons apprentice, VaBreeze, commonmass, cybersaur, rapala, NYC Sophia, nice marmot, Teknocore, ladybug53, davehouck, hotdamn, 4Freedom, radarlady, Tod, YucatanMan, Tortmaster, joanbrooker, bibble, FlyingToaster, greengemini, wishingwell, Penny GC, Steveningen, third Party please, chicagobleu, Puddytat, jrand, bluezen, Unbozo, ratcityreprobate, ChemBob, Leftcandid, Linda1961, Limelite, newinfluence, muddy boots, sebastianguy99, CPT Doom, pixxer, jamess, old mark, Smoh, reflectionsv37, crose, radical simplicity, politically indigo, wasatch, Gustogirl, Blue Bell Bookworm, Lefty Ladig, CA Nana, myboo, RJDixon74135, Larsstephens, SteveLCo, NJpeach, JDWolverton, Square Knot, pdx kirk, THirt, randallt, Mark Mywurtz, 207wickedgood, mythatsme, The Hindsight Times, LillithMc, Rosaura, Jimdotz, Texnance, Zack from the SFV, ArthurPoet, tardis10, scamperdo, doinaheckuvanutjob, TXdem, Robynhood too, kat68, 1BQ, Jeff Y, yoduuuh do or do not, paulex, chemborg, coppercelt, elziax, Trendar, sydneyluv, Floande, HedwigKos, koNko, Josiah Bartlett, asindc, wintergreen8694, Lawrence, JClarkPDX, Vacationland, joegoldstein, vahana, buckstop, GleninCA, RJP9999, flowerfarmer, ruellia, skepticalcitizen, Ljanney, paradise50, abarefootboy, fallina7, Eowyn9, Prickly Pam, 3rock, albo, Phoenix Woman, SpinsterLibrarian, bill warnick, kaliope, grimjc, BYw, War4Sale

    I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

    by Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 08:31:17 AM PST

  •  If only they had the time and interest (76+ / 0-)

    to study and vote.

    So many are working several jobs with kids to raise that they are, all too often, disengaged.

    Also, I know of too many being hoodwinked by the seemingly progressive Libertarian BS.

    I hope this country swings soon as too many are suffering.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 08:37:28 AM PST

    •  It seems that white millenials (24+ / 0-)

      I can't say for other groups of millienials, but white millenials are hooked onto the Libertarian mindset.

    •  The anti-authoritarian left (46+ / 0-)

      is a legitimate viewpoint, not something a person is "hoodwinked" into. It's exactly what should expect young people to be since they came of age with the post 9-11 security state, Bush lying the country into war, and Wall Street wrecking the economy.

      If Democrats want to keep Millenials they need to defend civil liberties and offer small-government liberalism. Obama understands that and it's one reason he does so well with young voters. It's also why a top-down, Wall Street, war hawk Democrat like Hillary Clinton is the wrong kind of candidate if the party wants to build for the future.

      •  eh... (17+ / 0-)

        I think there's a difference between anti-authoritarian and the Ron Paul cult (i.e. the people who want to do away with the Federal Reserve.)  The latter is something you're hoodwinked into.

        29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:05:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Worship of the Federal Reserve is a cult too, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chrisculpepper, War on Error

          … though.

          The motto on our folding money might as well be "In Fed We Trust."

          I don't get why Democrats insist the current Federal Reserve system is sacrosanct.

          Ordinary voters are supposed to just accept a system whose workings are arcane and secret, whose principles they don't understand and no one can clearly explain, except to imply, when questioned, that it's way over their heads?

          The implosion of the real economy, the ongoing destruction of the middle class, and the rigging of every market of significance all could not have happened without the Fed as a key enabler, every step of the way.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

          by lotlizard on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:54:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The reason you don't "get" Democrats is that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ljanney, cybrestrike

            they are just as full of cr*p as the Repubs.  Now there are actually progressives that are honest, but they would be progressive without there ever having been a Democratic party.  Anytime there is a political party, by definition, it is going to water-down its principles and just do whatever it takes to get its members elected.  Which is why Hilary is pro-war, because that sells everywhere (it makes money for the military, for the bomb-makers, etc.).  Same goes for why Obama has not arrested anyone on Wall Street for the fraud that happened, nor has he arrested anyone in politics for submitting phony evidence in regards weapons of mass destruction in places like Iraq (which caused us to go to war and costs many young people their lives and livelihood).

            And I guarantee that many people here will disagree with me, instead of being honest and dealing with the reality of what I have just written.  The one difference is that Democrats use honorable language, generally, when arguing points, whereas if this were a Republican website, everyone who disagrees with me would call me names, cuss at me, etc.

          •  Spoken like a libertarian. (0+ / 0-)

            Thank you.  We need to have a civil discussion about what alternatives Libertarians have to the Federal Reserve.

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:37:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you consider what I've said wrong though? (0+ / 0-)

              If it's right, it's right, and if it's wrong, it's wrong; it doesn't matter who else (such as Libertarians) may be saying it.

              Are you a proponent of the FED in its current form with its current policies?

              It would already help a lot if proponents of the Federal Reserve status quo would explain just why, in their view, the country can't possibly do without precisely the FED setup we have now. And why, in their view, that setup is not responsible for the FIRE sector sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and society?

              Do you think that the FED has been doing such a great job that the only people who would even think to criticize it are misguided Libertarians?

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

              by lotlizard on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:33:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  South Dakota has a state bank and gets better than (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            the nation as whole gets as results for its economy.  I suspect the federal reserve back in 1913 was just a giant give-away to the banking industry.

            •  South Dakota's state bank is an excellent example. (0+ / 0-)

              There are more possibilities than just the FED-managed status quo versus Libertarian fantasy.

              Where is the analysis and criticism of banking (and bank crime and the FED as banking kingpin) from the Left? It's time Democratic leaders (besides Elizabeth Warren) went full-court press on it.

              Manage the $#@!! economy for the people's benefit, already!

              The South Dakota state bank sounds like a shining example.

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

              by lotlizard on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 06:27:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Obama the candidate understands it (9+ / 0-)

        Obama the President has done some pretty Bush-like things to keep the power structure pacified.

        This from an Obamabot.

        Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

        by sacrelicious on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:18:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, pretty mixed. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myrmecia gulosa

          What I was hoping for with Obama was a President who would respond to popular pressure and I got what I expected. Frankly, the lack of effective popular movements acting strategically has been a bigger disappointment to me.

        •  I have mixed feelings on Obama (8+ / 0-)

          as I think do the vast majority of young people who supported him.

          On the one hand, he helped end DADT and DOMA. He's been relatively hands-off on marijuana. He's brought about some significant improvements in the health insurance system. His foreign policy has been absolutely outstanding by U.S. standards. Crises and disaster responses have been quite well-managed under the Obama administration.

          On the other hand, the economy is still sputtering, and while he shouldn't shoulder all of the blame for that, he probably could have been more ambitious, especially early in his first term. He's continued essentially the same privacy/civil liberties approach as Bush (which, in both of their defenses, is mostly just a continued expansion of policies and programs that have roots in the McCarthy era). The Manning and Snowden debacles have been handled poorly. We've made little to no progress on environmental issues.

          On the whole, if I could go back to 2008, I'd have supported him again. There's not a snowball's chance in Hell that any of the other candidates would have done as well. None of them would have done any differently in the areas where I think he performed poorly, and I think all of them would have done worse in at least some of the areas where I think he performed well. And that's even assuming that they might have had a less hostile Congress (since I think racism was part of the backlash/Tea Party uprising).

          But he's not quite the President of my dreams. If I were the sort to be disillusioned, I would be moderately disillusioned. If I were a black-and-white thinker who placed a lot of value on the economy or civil liberties, I might feel drawn to a party or a candidate that promised the opposite approach.

          Thankfully, though, I think most of my cohort has an appreciation for nuance; the events of our time have tended to lead us to believe that black-and-white thinking is itself the problem.

          "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

          by kyril on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:07:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (5+ / 0-)

            Obama did issue several executive orders adding safeguards to civil liberties and has several times asked Congress to pass more restrictions on federal power. That's a pretty unusual request in itself.

            He has much more to do on energy but he's already the best clean energy President America has ever had, by far. The usual list of cherry picked complaints about Obama's environmental record don't negate his extremely impressive accomplishments.

            His biggest mistake was focusing on healthcare instead of pushing a bigger agenda more aggressively in his first two years when he still had a Democratic Congress. Thanks Rahm!

            •  Disagree about the health care... I think it was (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, Ljanney

              great that he took that on, it really is the most difficult issue to pass through Congress, as it's failed for the past 100 years and universal health care is sorely needed at this time. We are so far behind the rest of the world in that area, and it hurts the economy as well. I think it's one of his best accomplishments.

              I'm not sure what else he could have done instead, more stimulus perhaps, but even with the Dems in power he couldn't get them to do more infrastructure spending which is really needed and impacts the economy directly (bridges falling apart, energy grid old and crumbling. Studies have shown that fixing these items boosts the economy.) There I'd agree with you that I'd rather have seen more action. But I don't want to wait another 20 or 30 years before health care gets addressed. It's personal, we all need it sooner or later. I can't believe, though, how botched the roll out has been, but I think it'll get it better as we go along, and I think it's going to be a winner and it will destroy the GOP.

          •  Solid Comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I agree. He's not my ideal President, but his process oriented approach seems to produce more lasting results. He could've done a lot of things through executive order, but instead chose the slower and more frustrating route of passing laws that will be hard to undo. From DADT to The Volcker Rule you just can't deny that on most fronts things have improved. His list of accomplishments (225 and it hasn't been updated recently) is pretty astounding and only getting longer.

            Allow provisional acceptance of things that go against your deepest convictions in the face of a preponderance of evidence.

            by ConservativeBrainTrust on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 11:51:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Voted for him numerous times (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            For nomination as well as in the general.

            Yeah, I would vote Obama again, too.

            My only change would have been to back Kucinich more readily since he did what a good progressive should have and proxied his caucus votes to Obama, when it was clear he wasn't going to have any further impact.

            I supported Edwards early, but it's clear he was a flawed candidate (not to mention a horrible debater against Darth Cheney in the '04 general).

            Keeping Kucinich in the nomination ring longer would have yielded more progressive talking points and pushed the debate more leftward… considering Obama was bulletproof in the '08 nomination race, I have no illusions any amount of support would have put Kucinich in the nomination seat.

            Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

            by sacrelicious on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 11:59:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You're thinking of the ACTUAL meaning of the word (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, kyril, pdx kirk, SouthernLeveller

        (because "libertarian", after all, is a term that's used everywhere but the USA to indeed mean "anti-authoritarian Left").

        WOE almost certainly means it in the US brand-name sense used by the Kochertarians (the term I use since the Libertarian Party was essentially a Koch family project a generation before Charles & David).

      •  What is small government liberalism? (7+ / 0-)

        What on earth is small government liberalism?  No Medicare?  No Social Security?  No aid for higher education?  No environmental regulation?  
        I know of no country with "small government liberalism".
        Instead of labels, be specific: what do you believe the role of government in the 21st century should be?  For whom?  What should it do?
        I will be forthright: I am a social democrat, meaning I support governments that look like Sweden, Norway, Finland.  National single payer health care for all.  Universal public education.  Through college.  Strong collective bargaining rights.  Public transit that works.  Progressive taxation that prevents the kind of wealth and income gaps we have here now.  Parental leave and child care policies that let parents raise their children without hunger, poverty, lack of health care.  A strong funded retirement system that does not leave the elderly poor and hungry.
        A drastically reduced military.  No overseas imperial wars.
        Let the games begin!

        •  I'd define small government liberalism (6+ / 0-)

          as a government that supports people but doesn't control them. The military is more than half of the federal government by funding, so cut that and you've got a smaller government.

          If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

          by AoT on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:51:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As long as we replace those spending cuts (0+ / 0-)

            with either spending increases in other areas or cut FICA an even greater amount to account for the smaller GDP multiplier that is inherent in tax cuts vs Govt spending. Otherwise, cutting any Govt spending (even if it is military spending) by definition decreases GDP (= G + C + I - NX) and private sector income (Govt deficit spending = Non-Govt surplus).

            MMT = Reality

            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

            by Auburn Parks on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 03:19:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Others may define it differently. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, CA Nana

          I've started using the term but I haven't seen it elsewhere.

          Most Americans are essentially anti-authoritarian. Skeptical of centralized power being abused by both government and corporations. Small government liberalism would embrace that in the way the old western/midwestern populist-progressives did when they saw government and business in collusion to screw them over (kind of like during the Bush years).

          First, protect individual liberties and civil rights. Government doesn't tell you how to live your life. State governments can't deny your right to vote etc.

          On the economy, you don't focus on nationalizing industries or forcing people into distant, ineffective bureaucracies. It means promoting more democracy and local control into the market.
          On the environment. increase the role of public participation and power of citizens to protect their communities. It has been the most effective way of protecting the environment. The big failures usually happen when industry takes over a state or federal agency that was supposed to protect. And, state-owned industries typically have horrible environmental records. National standards with local empowerment.

          It means promoting the type of socialist economic models that have been most effective in red states and rural areas: rural electric coops and credit unions. They allow members to vote on policies and the board of directors. Wealth created is returned to the members. It's actual democracy and reduces wealth inequality without dis-empowering people by putting all decisions in the hands of the federal government. The former Republic Windows factor that's now worker owned and managed is the next progression.

      •  Small-government liberalism? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's not liberalism if the focus is on small government. You need a large government to carry out the priorities of the progressive agenda. Go back to your Ron Paul subreddit with that nonsense.

        •  Small-government liberalism (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Houses in Motion, WisePiper, chemborg

          can mean maintaining a strong welfare and regulatory state but reducing those aspects of government which intrude on people's lives.

          It can mean scaling back international military and law enforcement involvement and reevaluating foreign aid to make sure we're not propping up dictators and oligarchies (however 'friendly').

          It can mean a different approach to healthcare and the social safety net - something more like Medicare for All and Basic Income, which would eliminate the bureaucracy and intrusive means testing now necessary to safeguard against fraud.

          It can mean streamlining the tax code, eliminating most deductions and instead providing subsidies at the point of sale for products and services whose purchase the government wishes to encourage - simplifying tax returns, helping protect privacy, and making sure that low earners can enjoy the same subsidies as do high earners.

          It can mean carefully reconsidering environmental regulations with the big picture in mind to make sure they don't block projects (like transit, infrastructure, and renewable energy) that will do more good than harm.

          On a local level, it can mean reevaluating certain regulatory schemes, like urban zoning codes that make increased density and affordable housing difficult if not impossible to accomplish.

          "Small government" doesn't have to mean "help people less." There are all kinds of ways to reduce the burden of an intrusive and controlling state while maintaining or even increasing the amount that people are actually helped by the state.

          "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

          by kyril on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:56:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agree about Hillary. (5+ / 0-)

        ...Let's hope we see a solid alternative with a chance to win the primaries enter the 2016 contest.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 03:49:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure I agree (5+ / 0-)

          As an Obama supporter in 2008, I thought the presidency was really important.

          Now, I wouldn't mind someone like Hillary to try reuniting parts of the Dem coalition that fell apart in 2008 (white working-class voters, rural voters) with the newly strengthened parts of the Obama coalition. I think she could move us in that direction if she's not too callous towards progressives and populists.

          But I'd really like young people to get involved with Congressional and even local politics. The last few years have shown how important a steady hand in the White House can be when Congress is losing its mind, but we can't have an insane Congress and insane state houses forever.

          Increasing involvement in politics can't stop with the White House. And the occupant of the White House will always take the blame for everything they didn't necessarily do. Due to past results, I'm not enthused about putting everything in one basket for another candidate like Obama, certainly, but any candidate for the White House might not help us make further long-term change.

          •  I completely agree about congressional and... (4+ / 0-)

            ...local political activism. As a matter of fact, that's where I've been since the first election I could vote in (at age 21) in 1968.  Expanding the progressive wing of the Democratic Party can't be achieved from the top.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:19:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I thought the Obama movement would help (0+ / 0-)

              get people involved and interested in the local and congressional races, too. Aside from pure coattails on the same ticket, that didn't happen.

              Now here I'd talk about perverse incentives where the presidency ends up as a machine supporting only the candidates they get along with best, rather than the larger party. I'd talk about the bullshit centrist rhetoric deceiving people into not believing their presidential vote should translate into votes for progressive Dems in Congress.

              But in my district (VA-05, then Perriello) Obama did campaign to re-elect my congressman, and he still lost. Probably not enough. But maybe there's only so much the presidency can do.

          •  True, we need a good Congress. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluezen, cville townie, ekgrulez1, Nulwee

            And we can't expect any President to pass everything we want, no matter who it is.

            But, if Bill Clinton were President right now with this Congress we'd see a long list of Republican agenda items passing, with Clinton getting enough Congressional Democrats to go along. I prefer gridlock to Clinton's triangulation, and I don't want to see that happen again. Having the wrong Democratic President can do major damage.

            •  I am hopeful (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that Hillary will not be Bill Clinton. I have to see her as a different person with different beliefs and motivations despite their common background, and governing in far different times. And even Bill is a lot more progressive in his rhetoric when he's out of power.

              That hope will be dashed on the rocks, of course, if the Usual Suspects show up: Bruce Reed, Al From, etc. At least Dick Morris is permanently out of the Democratic picture.

              •  It's hard for me to see (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                any consistent beliefs or motivations Hillary has other than her own ambition. She stopped talking about "universal health care" for over a decade after the '93 loss and that's supposed to be her signature issue. She limited herself to talking about expanding medicare and "prescription drugs for seniors" because it polls better and that age groups votes in larger numbers. Her privileged suburban, elite prep school background doesn't give me much comfort either. I don't see much to hope for.

      •  Jail a few bankers. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hell, George WH Bush did it. Hundreds of times.

        •  I've begun to see, though I'm not really clear (0+ / 0-)

          on this, that there are at the very least two major factions of the .01%, one represents the financial sector, which seems to be the most egregious of the two, and the other is the industrial sector. The Third-way Democrats seem to be aligned with the financial sector, and the Republicans seem to be aligned with the industrial sector. While I realize there is overlap between the two groups, it seems like the industrial sector has some of the same problems with the financial sector as most everybody else does. This explains the Koch brother's/libertarian's problem with the Federal Reserve and George WH Bush putting bankers in jail, while the Obama administration has given them a pass.

          While I am distrustful of corporations, their problems with Wall Street are perhaps common ground. I have no idea how to build on that, however. It would have made more sense for the corporations to join OWS and throw off the stranglehold that the financial sector has over industry. I guess they would rather "suffer" at the hands of their rich friends, then to associate with the "unwashed masses."

          I realize now just how right the OWS protesters are about the real source corroding our democracy. Hopefully the younger people are seeing it, too and will care enough to engage in the political process and bring the necessary change. If they think that voting is not important, then they have to wonder why the Republicans are going to such lengths with voter suppression. This tactic should indicate to anyone who doesn't vote that it is. At the very least, the information about millennials gives a group to focus on in voter drives. With enough progressive young people involved, maybe then something can be done about the bankers.

          •  Obama got a deal. He let Goldman, Sachs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and their buddies walk. They used their ultra-high-speed transaction systems to reset the market at will, slowly moving stock prices (and retirement fund values) back to 2007 levels.

            Yeah, it's a game.

            Financial system organizations have $85,000,000,000 a month rolling out to them from The Fed. That's called "quantitative easing." Or, alternatively, free money. They use the money to own or control everything.

            Big game.

            We used to have a democracy. OWS originally wanted three things: we are our own leaders, we oppose Wall Street corruption, and we want jobs. What OWS got was "volunteer" shills by the dozens, no prosecutions, and very slow crappy job creation.

            Better to try than to do nothing.

      •  Big government =/= authoritarianism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Just ask my 89 year old grandmother, an immigrant from Mexico who found more freedom AND prosperity following the New Deal than EVER she had before during her poverty-and-racism-ridden childhood (yes, Jim Crow extended to Mexicans in Texas).

        Any time I hear the "small-government" mantra from anyone anywhere, I just want to shoot myself in the face.

        Col. Brandt: "What do you think we'll do when we lose the war?" Capt. Kiesel: "Prepare for the next one." --from "Cross of Iron"

        by ConservatismSuxx on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:31:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We can work with the Young Libertarians. (28+ / 0-)

      Our value proposition is pretty simple. Libertarians want less government involvement in both the Economy and Social Issues.

      Voting Republican will never get government out of the economy. Republicans support corporate tax breaks, farm subsidies, union-busting, and corporate immunity from laws.

      But voting Democratic will get the government out of your social life. We have proven that we can and will pass legislation for abortion rights, LGBT rights, and we have been on the forefront of protecting the First Amendment.

      When I speak to a Libertarian I just tell them the truth: Vote Dem and get half of what you want or vote Repug and get none of what you want.

      Because all Libertarians fancy themselves to be "rational actors" they usually come around and wind up pulling the correct lever.

      (Even though they mutter under their breath about how we need a Gold Standard...and why can't they find a girlfriend as cool as Dagny Taggart...and how they wish their mom would be more liberal about their curfew time....)

      •  We don't have to give up on economics. (27+ / 0-)

        I talk with Libertarians who honestly believe they're anti-corporate right along with Occupy, regardless of the fact that the entire party is a front groups for billionaires advancing their own interests.

        Promoting local economies over a big box economy, and introducing more democratic mechanisms into the marketplace will appeal to many Libertarians and other Millenials. But, that's not a message they're hearing from most Democrats.

      •  Libertarian = rational, libertarianism is not. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, highacidity, cville townie

        The entire point of libertarianism seems to ignore human nature.  Yes, there's a desire to be "rational" amongst humans, but it's actually quite less powerful than other factors like fear and the need for food/survival.

        Most of human history is the result of irrational behavior combined with group mechanics that make "rational" behavior a simple decision of "with us or against us".

        Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

        by sacrelicious on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:24:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huge Coalition Opportunities (5+ / 0-)

        A lot of millenial views are generational regardless of political identification. I've had enough anecdotal conversations to believe that we support the following in overwhelming majorities:

        1) Gay rights - and coupled with this, ending benefits for married couples so that one family structure is not privileged over others. A married couple should not be entitled to more than a family consisting of a single person caring for an elderly or disabled relative or unrelated roommates. The division is over whether everyone or no one should get benefits, but we tend to agree that giving married heterosexual people a leg up over everyone else is arbitrary and unfair.

        2) End the War on Drugs - immediately legalize the possession and sale of all illegal street drugs. Progressives also tend to favor regulation of purity and taxation to help fund addiction recovery options and education. Libertarians do not. But again, the main premise we tend to all agree on.

        3) Start taking individual civil liberties seriously again - we need to do a better job of enforcing freedom of religion, thought, speech and movement. The secrets of our surveillance state are seen as another failure of older politicians and policymakers to get with the program on technology. We can run circles around these old dudes when it comes to knowledge and nuance of tech. Why isn't anyone listening to us?

        Those are just the first 3 that popped into my head. There are many more. Even millennial republicans like these ideas.

        Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

        by bull8807 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:46:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent -- and certainly #4 a less-militaristic (0+ / 0-)

          foreign policy.  The big rub is going to be the role of "government" at any level in helping people's lives, and whether we can sell the Randian-inclined libertarians on a "small-gov't liberalism" as defined above.  Some, certainly.

          •  Localize? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Houses in Motion

            I agree with your assessment, and I think perhaps we just need to localize government to the point where areas with lots of people who don't want to pay taxes can elect not to have roads. I have a feeling they might come around on the absolutism element when they can't leave their houses to go to work. Especially up here where it snows a lot. We saw with the government shutdown how many people suddenly realized that we need government and taxes in our lives to function as a society. A little of that goes a long way toward making people more pragmatic and interested in compromising. If we make it clear that we are willing to follow them on foreign policy and privacy issues, perhaps they will make concessions in other areas we feel strongly about.

            Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

            by bull8807 on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:41:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarianism is a scam (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Mywurtz, fenway49

        Explain to them that, without big, bad government paving roads, we're screwed.  Only in America is libertarianism taken seriously.  That says EVERYTHING.

        Col. Brandt: "What do you think we'll do when we lose the war?" Capt. Kiesel: "Prepare for the next one." --from "Cross of Iron"

        by ConservatismSuxx on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:34:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  what is this job thing you speak of? (12+ / 0-)

      Oh i know, it's what my grandfather spoke of back when he joined the UAW and fought for good wages.

      I might sound bitter but i graduated 4 years ago (dec 09) and i'm still looking for work.

      I spent 6 years studing but it seems no one wants to even consider my 2 degrees. Or hell i'm still not even sure WHAT i can do with them these days.

      Degree in history and one in political science, grad schools won't take me, and the job office at school is having me take placement tests that tell me i should be an engineer, and the job fairs aren't even taking resumes anymore.


      •  Can't get into grad school (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4Freedom, Cassandra Waites

        My resume clearly shows that I was working 2 or 3 jobs at any given point in my undergrad career... And then professors praise my resume, and sincerely! Of course my grades weren't 4.0.  I didn't have mommy paying for school.

        Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change -- George Monbiot.

        by Nulwee on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:35:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Considered working for the Federal Government? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        firemage, jobobo

        Check out That's what I did back in the late 1970's when the economy was lousy.

        At the very least you can earn money while you're trying to find a job that appeals to you more.

        •  the federal govt has been shedding jobs over (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nulwee, Cassandra Waites

          the last 5 yrs, & especially since sequestration. that's the whole idea behind the gop's deficit reduction mantra ad nauseum: they want to eliminate as many federal employees as possible, & privatize hand-selected ones as political favors to their biggest donors -- like xe (formerly, blackwater)

          •  I checked out USA Jobs in the 70s! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I know that the commentator didn't mean it that way, but that's how the paragraph read. At any rate, things aren't like the 1970s now, as you, bluezen, so rightly point out.

            To get into the federal government now you have to have done pretty much exactly the same job as they're hiring, somewhere else--I'm not joking, go through a job app some time--and you should be a veteran, preferentially one's who's a racial minority and disabled.

            Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change -- George Monbiot.

            by Nulwee on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:12:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, & many, many agencies have had their (0+ / 0-)

              positions frozen, which means they can't hire anyone, qualified or not.

              i know the commenter was trying to be helpful, but i didn't want anyone to get their hopes up too high for landing a federal govt job.

              btw, i wanted to rec your comment but the rec button's disappeared/timed out :)

        •  I check there every other day, i talked (3+ / 0-)

          with an FBI recruiter and she thought i'd be good for a support role. Think is and she admitted as much is they have had a hiring freeze. (she didn't mention the sequester but when i did she gave me a knowing look) In June i got a pack from them on how to prep my application, got one waiting and ready to go, i just need an opening.

          I live in Metro Detroit, Canton address, but i'm in Dearborn 99.999% of the time watching my grandfather.

          And due to that Canton MI-11 address, being gerrymander R-Crazy, it's not like i can seek work with the party, and they don't like to hire people from outside their districts.

          Also i'm limited, i take care of a 93 year old, and i don't want to leave Metro Detroit anyway, so that makes my search area rather limited.


    •  Time is the biggest factor (5+ / 0-)

      that I have encountered. I have two sons attending at OSU. Between working and studies there is very little free time. Not to mention the stress of these two things.

      They follow politics read Kos, Hunter and Joan.

      My sons vote, volunteer and attend protest.

      We can't give up. Encourage and engage!


      "the Devil made me buy this dress!" Flip Wilson as Geraldine Jones

      by BlueJessamine on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:59:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WOW DailyKos is older than I thought. (0+ / 0-)

      I had no idea there were so many boomers here. I think that's a good thing.  

      Allow provisional acceptance of things that go against your deepest convictions in the face of a preponderance of evidence.

      by ConservativeBrainTrust on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 11:46:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where are you getting your definitions? (0+ / 0-)

      I've used Strauss & Howe's generational theory daily in my work for nearly a decade, and am curious about these age cohorts you're defining here. Haven't seen 'em before, and wonder where you're getting them.

      It's not a surprise that the upper limit of the new progressive cohort is in its late 30's now -- which is to say, 37 or 38. S&H's definition of Millennials puts the beginning of the birth cohort at 1978 or so, which would make the oldest edge of Millennials about 36 now. And S&H also noted that here are usually 3 or so cusp/transitional years between generations, so people born in those years will typically have one foot in each generation.

      The younger edge of the "Clinton Xers" you're talking about fit very closely with this late-30s cusp group. Though nominally Xers, they partake richly of the Millennial mood -- and back there in the early 90s, they were the first harbingers of the emerging generational shift.

      Strauss & Howe also noted that each generation is split into two cohorts -- an older one and a younger one. This is usually defined by the generation of the parents who raised them, and the generation that made their entertainment when they were kids. Nothing in their argument supports these political shadings, though it did -- very specifically -- predict the shifts that we are seeing now.

    •  On being hoodwinked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peregrine kate, War on Error

      I think alot of college students get attracted to Libertarianism because it combines naturally attractive socially liberal attitudes, with an alluring celebration of "rugged individuality" at a time when many college students are getting their first dose of freedom and absolutely loving it.

      However, once one graduates and gets out into the work world, and notices how nobody's even willing to give you a shot, or how you can get laid off for no reason at all while your corporate employer's stock price continues to skyrocket, one becomes economically liberal pretty fast. Seeing companies race to the bottom and give away jobs/money/know-how to other countries as fast as possible while gov't stands by and does nothing, tends to make one think that gov't needs to do MORE, not less.

      Or maybe that's just me. :P

    •  I've heard this before... (0+ / 0-)

      I remember 1972 all too well when McGovern's strategists were convinced that they would overwhelmingly win the youth vote.

      Didn't turn out that way, since Nixon got a majority of the youth vote. So I'm really not expecting anything like the scenario described here.

  •  The Democratic Party Has Been a Conservative (17+ / 0-)

    party for all of their lives. Where on earth does voting for the Democrats suggest that this is progressive at all, much less "most progressive" since FDR?

    Let's take some polls on the kinds of economic policy that created our only large middle class in our history, please, before we fly off the handle and start suggesting that any Americans today are "progressive."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 08:39:06 AM PST

  •  The reason that many voters switched from (23+ / 0-)

    Democrat to Republican as they aged was not greater maturity, but the accumulation of wealth. Since 2000 it has become harder and harder for young people, not born into wealth, to accumulate any, hence they are likely to remain Democrats for as long as inequality plagues our economy.

  •  Clinton Gen X'er here (34+ / 0-)

    Grew up in a "Reagan Democrat" household(my dad didn't like Clinton, voted Bush in 1992).   Initially was a liberal Republican(I voted McCain in 2000, never voted for W because I hated the religious right), eventually became a Democrat in 2004(voted Howard Dean and held my nose and voted Kerry).

    Enthusiastically voted Obama both times in 2008 and 2012 and have voted Democratic in the midterms every time since 2006.   Yeah, the GOP isn't ever getting another vote from me.

    I agree with President Obama, our country's journey is not yet complete. We must continue the work that our forebearers at Seneca Falls started, and put the Equal Rights Amendment into our Constitution.

    by pistolSO on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:20:25 AM PST

  •  My 14 year old... (13+ / 0-)

    ...talks like more like a boomer than I do.  And he points out the rightwing talking points asserted by some of his friends.  It will be interesting to see how he is in 5 or so years.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:22:34 AM PST

    •  I also have a 14 year old (4+ / 0-)

      He really does not have much interest in politics but plans to vote Democratic. On social issues, he thinks the GOP are silly to oppose gay rights, reproductive rights, and he has been well-taught by his geezer/Boomer mom what party makes the big cuts to his schools, etc.
      Certainly in 2008 and 2012 his classmates were overwhelmingly for Obama, but this is a blue island in red-to-purple North Carolina.

      The words of House Republican: We do not care.

      by Chun Yang on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:37:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A bunch of us old farts are on line (14+ / 0-)

    this morning!  56% of the poll are over 50.  (That includes me.)

    Sooner or later the wealthy take such a large piece of the pie that the poor are left with nothing to eat but the rich - Terrell Davis on Twitter

    by coloradocomet on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:31:43 AM PST

  •  Star Wars generation has lived through (19+ / 0-)

    the choking of their promise by the "capitalists" and are trying to get the Dems to right that wrong.

    Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:49:33 AM PST

  •  My kids are GenXers (40 & 38) (13+ / 0-)

    who came of age under Bush one.  They vote Democrat.

    11:11 being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:00:34 AM PST

  •  Repubs are doing most of the work for us (32+ / 0-)

    by intentionally alienating women, minorities and LGBT.  The younger generations' attitudes my vary on things like economic structures, foreign policy, security and questions of the proper role of government in protecting the wellbeing of citizens (traditional Democratic/Republican divides), but they are overwhelmingly discarding the mysogeny, racism and homophobia of their grandparents' generations.  Denying marriage rights to gays is as bewilderingly alien to them as separate drinking fountains is to us.  For Republicans, choosing to die on the hill of defending white, male, hetero privilege is, in the end, simply choosing to die.  

    I was told there would be sandwiches

    by Aunt Acid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:05:25 AM PST

    •  Exactly right. (7+ / 0-)

      I don't necessarily see any distinction between my generation and older generations on economics -- maybe slightly more liberal, but I don't think older generations are as right-wing on economics as their voting habits would suggest that they are.

      The difference I've noticed between my generation and my parents' generation (both my parents are Boomers who came of age under Nixon) has more to do with social issues.  We grew up in a time when, even if gays were not completely accepted, we probably at least knew some people who were openly gay.  And, definitely unlike my parents, we grew up with diversity.  My dad never attended school with a non-white person until he was a junior in high school.

      29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:42:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spot on, but in all fairness to GOP bigots it's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Panacea Paola, myrmecia gulosa

      not intentional,

      intentionally alienating women, minorities and LGBT
      they just can't help themselves.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:15:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Xer under Reagan technically... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    July 1988 came of age....

    And I am an "R".  Though I will vote for the D if the R is crazy.  

  •  What age defines a cohort? (4+ / 0-)

    Very interesting stuff, in the diary and following the link. It's been a long time, but in graduate courses on political socialization, I remember being taught that political generations were best defined as cohorts by events in their early teenage years (13).  Of course, this is too narrow to define a useful group, but it would move the window from groups defined by who was President when someone was 18 years old.  

    At any rate, this Pew research offers more hope and evidence that things are moving in a positive, liberal direction, despite the lumps in the road.  


    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by voicemail on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:12:03 AM PST

  •  Xer - 41 (6+ / 0-)

    Outside of a few misguided high school friends from Indiana, I don't know a single Republican in my demo - so these results certainly don't mesh with my experience. MY sense is more that the early Xers [those in their early 50's and last couple years of their 40's] along with the Boomers [who have always been a conservative demo - even in the '60's] are the core of Republican support.

    “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

    by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:14:21 AM PST

    •  Note - I'm not saying all Boomers are conservative (5+ / 0-)

      Just that we tend to see that generation through the lens of the '60's social and political upheavals and forget that the greater generation of Boomers were really not part of that. It was a minority that got the press.

      “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

      by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:16:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That analysis doesn't account for right drift (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Brown Thrasher, k9disc

        in the U.S. national politics since LBJ was president. Yes, there has been progressive movement on social issues but the U.S. has moved hard right on economic issues since LBJ.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:14:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And it was the boomers (4+ / 0-)

          and early Gen Xers coming of age and voting that did it...

          That said - most millenials I know are silicon valley libertarians on economic issues. They are very liberal on social issues, but they certainly aren't on the economic left.

          “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

          by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:22:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The first wave of Boomers... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lucid, Cassandra Waites

            ...1946-54 tends to be more liberal; the second wave 1955-64, more conservative. For instance, in 1980, first wave voted for Carter, second for Reagan.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:05:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have a theory that it's all about environmental (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades

              lead. The younger boomers and older Xer's were at the peak of environmental lead contamination in their youth [via leaded gasoline]. I don't know if you've seen the recent research on how lead is the only factor that completely explains the crime wave both both chronologically and geographically, but it is very compelling. I think an extended argument could be made wrt to economic and political thought as well. Lead exposure in youth is proven to make people more more aggressive, less empathetic, less capable of higher reasoning, etc., etc.

              Would be interesting to investigate.

              “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

              by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:58:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  come to think of it I have a nephew this age (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and he is some sort of tech guy and his wife is a psychologist; he's Colombian and she's Nigerian. He DOES spout all sort of libertarian nonsense;lastnight he was telling my 16 yr old son ( who hasASpergers ) that entrepeneurship is the going to save us all and we should just rely on our own ability to innovate.  told him to try spinning that when he's 50, his knees andhips hurt andhe feels exhausted most of the time, a lot of which comes from listening to crap about how the latest fad is going to change everything. He asked me what's my life's dream. I said kid, at 50, my dream is to make it to retirement and not have to be out on the street, and to enjoy not getting upto go to work every day.

        •  Also - don't downplay the southern strategy (4+ / 0-)

          which syphoned off a lot of the white economic populist vote into supporting the party of plutocracy.

          “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

          by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:25:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  like the x'ers (4+ / 0-)

        there are pretty big internal divisions within the boomer cohort.

      •  We were considered the lunatic fringe by our peers (0+ / 0-)
      •  60's radicallism was overblown by the media (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        as a sort of boogeyman to frighten people the same way gays have been later portrayed in the media solely as gyrating jock-strapped satyrs or drag queens invading the streets. Most people never saw either of these things first hand, but their coverage in the media helped create a backlash effect even among young people.

        Most of the push back from conservatives even today has its origin in the sixties. The major impetus to 60's radicalism was the Vietnam war. The other was the civil rights movement. Once the war was over, the radicalism subsided pretty quickly. The civil rights struggle is still with us, though the right has been trying hard to neutralize it by crying quotas and reverse discrimination among other things.

        The Powell memo, the blueprint that the right seems to have been following for the last forty odd years, was a reaction to these movements. One of the things that struck me in the Powell memo was his disbelief that people were standing up for themselves against the powers that be, which is why he formulated a strategy to stop it from happening again. He never mentions either of the above two causes.

        To see the effect, compare how the media covered the Vietnam War as opposed to its coverage of later wars. Compare how the military is maned. To keep young people in check, the draft was done away with. The draft was the major source of much of the protest. Instead, the powers that be are trying to impoverish people into joining the military. Since conservatives see poverty as an individual failing, they can more easily say that it is your own fault if you have to join the military, even though it is the powers that be (the banks and corporations) that are causing the poverty. The government used to ameliorate this, but under the influence of the corporations our officials are gradually rolling this role of government back.

        Powell generalized his concerns because he was thinking in the long term. He knew that that particular war would end, and he wanted to be able to have the U.S. wage war at will without the inconvenience of wide spread protest and resentment. War profiteering has always been a large part of the U.S. economy that the 1% doesn't want to give up. His plan has pretty much worked so far. Every war we have had since then has been an attempt by conservatives to undo the pall of the Vietnam war and make war seem wholesome and All-American again so that corporations and banks can profit again without any inconvenience from those they wiish to exploit.

  •  This Millennial says "can't happen soon enough!" (12+ / 0-)

    My generation is super socially progressive (on average, there still are pockets in deep red land) and much more skeptical of Wall Street and the vulture capitalism that has long infected our economy.

    However, we just don't give a crap about privacy, the protests of the more libertarian "techie" subgroups notwithstanding.  Oooh, a new iPhone app?!  Sign me up!  And what the hell, I do it myself.

    Of course, how many times have I heard from my own parents (Baby Boomers, both born in 1955) that their generation was supposed to be the progressive, "live and let live" group.  And then they went and elected Reagan upon turning 25-30 years old...

    So who knows if we can keep this up.  We will need a lot more Elizabeth Warren Democrats to fight for us, but hopefully we can make that a reality.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:17:42 AM PST

  •  I blame Alex P. Keaton (9+ / 0-)

    Fascinating difference between Gen Xers who came of age under Reagan/Bush vs. those who came of age under Clinton.

    (though I love Michael J. Fox.)

    •  Alex Keaton horrified my Greatest Gen parents, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bethesda 1971, QuelleC

      FDR liberals. They thought Keaton was going to destroy the planet with his evil GOP ways. I thought Keaton was just another Archie Bunker, no serious threat to the cosmic order, just a character representing a part of the population. After all, his parents were lovable liberals. My father was big into the whole generational theories, interesting stuff but I was more skeptical.

      I'm encouraged about today's generation, they are not just turned off about the what the Republicans say and do, but seem to be willing to be active in politics and want a more progressive nation.

  •  Millennials are a 'Hero' generation (11+ / 0-)

    Neil Howe & Bill Strauss coined the term 'Millennial' and found four recurring generational archetypes, Propher, Nomad, Hero & Artist, who all share certain traits.

    Millennials are a 'Hero' generation. Such generations grow up during an 'Unravelling' period and benefit from a more protected upbringing than their predecessors. Helicopter parenting ring a bell? They generally come of age as relatively sober & serious young adults, more suited to collective than individual enterprise. We've started seeing similar youth trends this side of the Atlantic too, with school attainment up and teen pregnancy, drinking and general delinquency well down.

    The last Hero archetype was the Greatest/G.I Generation, who voted overwhelmingly for FDR and who Millennials are often compared to. All their lives they were the key cog of the New Deal coalition and were the only generation that never really warmed to Reagan.

    With regards to the next generation, they'll be the 'Artist' or 'Adaptive' archetype, which basically means they'll be more like the Silent Generation. They'll have an extremely protected upbringing and will probably come of age rather conformist and risk-averse. They probably won't be as Democratic as the Millennials.

    If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists- Manic Street Preachers

    by Liberal Of Limeyland on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:22:44 AM PST

    •  This is fascinating (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Of Limeyland, TDDVandy

      Growing up under the vague Cold War threat would not be considered an "unravelling" period?  The anti-Communist propaganda from McCarthy and the like from the 50s up to the early 80s seems similar to all the "War on Terror" stuff from the Bush Administration?

      In any event, I will take being compared to the Greatest Generation any day of the week.  Not because of our accomplishments, but because of our politics.

      "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

      by mconvente on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:29:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  love Howe and Strauss (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mconvente, Chun Yang

      Although it is a bit eerie to read Millennials Rising, written in 2000 before 9/11, prophesize about how a "Hero" generation generally needs something dramatic or traumatic around which to rally, something that forever affects them and forges their belief system in a profound way.  I remember reading it then and wondering aloud what once-in-a-lifetime event that might be.

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:49:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  in the long run (8+ / 0-)

        i expect that 9/11 won't be the event that does it, though. the economic collapse and austerity that followed might be, though.

        •  It was all one long sobering chain of events (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming

          that brought our childhoods to an abrupt stop in many ways. I was in a 7th grade math classroom when we found out about 9/11 and the economy tanked the year I graduated from high school. 9/11 brought the wars, the wars have been going on for more than half of my life, and paying for the wars had quite a bit to do with the lack of money for domestic services, aside from what Wallstreet was responsible for.

          I have a feeling the strongest resistance to traditional warfare will always come from us. MAYBE a surgical strike, in and out with a small force. Otherwise, no.

          We found out what everyone born after Vietnam forgot. To see so many young men destitute and suffering from the demons of PTSD, not to mention the physical injuries; it's just another reminder to us that the costs of war took so much from us.

          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

          by bull8807 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 02:25:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's exactly what Strauss & Howe predicted (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, doinaheckuvanutjob

          In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 a lot of people were askign Strauss & Howe is that was the catalyst that would trigger the Hero generation, and to the surprise of many they said it was not.  They have since said that the Great Recession of 2008 was the major event and the 2008 Democratic election of President Obama was a beginning point of the generational change.  Though the Howe & Strauss model doesn't project the high water mark for this new, more progressive America to happen until the mid 2020's.  It will take time for the millennials to flex their political muscle.

          Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior. -Julian Assange-

          by ChadmanFL on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 03:24:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  That 37 and younger cutoff is spot on for us (25+ / 0-)

    My husband is 37 and considers himself Gen-X/Millennial transition.  I just turned 34 and consider myself firmly a Millennial, primarily due to an earlier exposure to technology than my peers thanks to some lucky opportunities.  (I was online before there was a World Wide Web thanks to Prodigy.)

    We grew up with Captain Planet and a constant barrage of recycling messages, with technology to make the world a better place at our fingertips and the constant frustration of it not actually getting better being attributable to big businesses being evil - not government regulations stifling innovation.

    We've seen our friends shunned by the elders for lifestyle choices.  We've been horrified as some folks, our age even, continue to push racist agendas despite being told we now live in a colorblind society.

    We went to college on the promise of an education providing good jobs and learned that was a lie.  Instead, we found ourselves saddled with enormous debt.

    I may very well be the oldest Millennial, but I'm as much of one as any twenty-something who just graduated.

    The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

    by catwho on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:26:26 AM PST

  •  GOP knows it, hence voting laws and going... (14+ / 0-)

    …always more to the right! As if it would counter-balance the phenomenon!

    Conservatives are like dinosaurs, slowly going extinct…

    In the old days, the 1% could lie al they want, people didn't have as much access to information as they do now, and the biggest problem with conservatives is one of CREDIBILITY! They lie about something they previously said…although it's on YouTube for everyone to listen! Hard to call yourself "misquoted"!

    Once you lose credibility, people don't believe you EVEN when you tell the truth!!!!


    •  indeed (3+ / 0-)

      And I've often tried to imagine what it must be like to be on the other side of the equation --- looking at demographic data, or a chart like this, and seeing so many people who are going to be doing so much voting for so many years over the coming years and decades... that disagree with you on so many things.  Hard to fathom.  Kind of a vague uneasy claustrophobic feeling, I guess.  No wonder they act out.

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:53:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh hey (0+ / 0-)

    I've never been on a faultline before. Apparently 1976 was an interesting turning point.

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:51:30 AM PST

  •  over 50, but not a Boomer (6+ / 0-)

    I know, I know, this is an old argument, but those of us born in the early 1960s aren't really Baby Boomers.

  •  The Nixon cohort is most interesting.... (12+ / 0-)

    ...more left-leaning than the cohorts before or after it.

    That's what happens when your President turns out to be "I am not a Crook."

    I have a feeling those who came of age after George W. Bush, will trend similarly. At the very least, there will be a sharp step-jump in their left-leaning tendencies compared to those who came of age under Clinton.

    •  I was 8 when Watergate broke (5+ / 0-)

      and it, along with Vietnam, absolutely helped make me a Dem for life. I had no memory of LBJ and Vietnam (especially since I lived in Israel during his entire time in office) or the '68 convention and riots. That was all ancient history by the time I started noticing politics, by which time the GOP was the evil party, thanks to Nixon. To this day I'm shocked whenever I find out that someone I know of my generation votes GOP. It's like eating glass to me.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:10:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. Instead of cartoons in the afternoon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        we had Watergate on the television. I wasn't exactly thrilled with it, but I understood that the President had done something very bad and we had to find out what had happened. My father calling him Tricky Dicky was enough for my developing political mind to grasp that he was in the wrong.

        I am still not convinced completely about the cohort breakdown. Being born in 67 puts me in the Ford/Nixon cohort, but my first real understanding of politics came about the time Carter began to run for office and watching the Reagan years unfold. I began to understand that the R's will do anything to win office. They were willing to deal with Iran to prevent the hostages release. They were willing to embrace racism in the Southern Strategy. By the time I could vote in 86 I proudly wore my Rolling Stones concert t-shirt (yeah, all you uptight Church of Christ Republican suburbanites I can vote!) and was completely disarmed by the Democratic polling worker, Miss Butterfield. She invited me back to the caucus and I fumbled an answer yes. Seems a long time ago, but it seems also that the R's haven't changed except to get worse.

        Putting on the spectacles of science in expectation of finding an answer to everything looked at signifies inner blindness. -- J(ames) Frank Dobie

        by cactusflinthead on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:28:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anyone who lived through any part (2+ / 0-)

          of the Nixon era prior to his resignation and remembers it and isn't seriously conservative was scarred by the experience and developed some bias against the GOP, I'm convinced, or at least became cynical about politics. Reagan just confirmed this bias for me. He was a dumbed-down Nixon in many ways. The years from '67 to '74 profoundly set back US politics and we've yet to recover from it. Nixon was only a part of it, but a huge part.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 05:01:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was 10 when WG broke--it was clear that Nixon (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            was evil but then my parents were split on Carter.  I in turn was torn btwn them--in the runup to '80 I half-seriously wished her luck with "her man Jimmy" but I was't horrified when Reagan won.   Missed voting in that one myself by about 6 months.  But then graduated and went to Reed, aka The Most Radical School On the West Coast, and by '84 I not only voted (and campaigned) for Mondale but was certain against all evidence he would win. By the next year Dem politics were much too moderate for me; my room-mate was a Sandinista. Only Jesse J brought me back to the  dems.

            But my experience was that outside of Reed my cohort were Reagan-Bush R's or nonpolitical.  I was btw born '63, fitting me into the useless "Jen Jones" designation.      

            •  We must be fellow oddballs, then (0+ / 0-)

              to have remained LW Dems throughout that whole era, when it seemed like everyone wanted to become an investment banker. I still find that bizarre, like a whole generation lost its soul, for money, and perhaps blow.

              Btw, Reed was the Animal House college, right?

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 05:39:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, and Bluto was modeled on me. But yes, it was (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                bizarre that my peers at every other school were all into blow (or worse, Saying NO to Drugs) and pursuing business degrees, and Reagan.  It was like the pod people had taken over.  But not in the Eastmoreland neighborhood of Portland, I can tell you....

                •  We're part of a very selfish and self-indulgent (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  generation that grew up mostly not wanting much in an era where not many terrible things were going on in the US compared to what preceded and would follow (not much that I can recall between Vietnam and 9/11) and we came to expect to get whatever we wanted--and we wanted much, did our best to get it, and got most of it, at whatever cost to our souls, lives and finances.

                  We sold out to Reagan because he promised us success on the cheap, we sold out to big corporations and Wall St. because that was the only way most of us were going to make a lot of money, and we sold out to (excessive amounts of) drugs because that was the only way to make up for the lack of happiness we found we were experiencing even with our money and success.

                  And then Clinton came along and made it ok to have been and done all those things with his whole GOP Lite triangulation thingee. Plus SUVs yippie! From 1980 to 2008, being a successful and materialistic yuppie was the thing to be, and being a dirty fucking hippie, not so much.

                  Now, finally, that appears to be changing. I think.

                  "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                  by kovie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:10:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess the numerical majority of our cadre were (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    like that; I just never associated with any of them, any more than I had to.   Iran-Contra and then the anti-Apartheid movement happened around me; in general I think the degree of 80s student activism is far under-stated in our narratives today (esp these 'generational' ones).  I also went right from Reed into 6 years of g-school, then teaching, so a certain amount of DFH was built in to my experience.  And most importantly, I never stopped smoking pot from 1980 right through 2008...  

                    •  Divestment was huge in my school (0+ / 0-)

                      I followed Iran-Contra very closely, having studied under one of the country's foremost experts on US-Latin America history and written some papers on Latin liberation movements and the brutal US-aided RW reaction to them. I was no campus radical by any means, but all this made me despise the right even more than I already did, and firm in being a liberal.

                      Naturally, my first real job out of school was for a big name Wall St. firm. :-)

                      In IT, though. That's where the tech jobs were back then in NYC. Hated it.

                      I'm not nearly as "radical" as you (I mean that as a compliment, in the sense of living what you believe), but I could just never understand how a decent and intelligent person could be a Republican. It's like eating glass.

                      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                      by kovie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:26:15 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In ref to your last 'graph, I have to note that I (0+ / 0-)

                        did take 12 years off from academia to pursue a career in corporate IT -- though in educational technology, not exactly Wall Street--but I did end up as a Dir with a 6-figure salary.  Hated it so much I went back to the life of an adjunct professor, just about qualifying for food stamps though never quite.

                        I wasn't really a campus radical, not by Reed standards.  But I did get on local TV once protesting the Contra aid.  And I most definitely earned myself an FBI file when I helped stop a train transporting MX missiles.   Might be few other things in it but who knows.  In any case that was in the quaint days when we worried about the FBI, and a 'file' was  a manila folder containing paper sheets...

                  •  Only weeks ago you were ripping "young people" (0+ / 0-)

                    a new one, saying hoiw much better your generation is, and millenials, and even gen x were lazy, evil and pretty much all the things you are saying the opposite here, and you still think me saying you have a split personality disprder is an insult?

                    It seems pretty accurate, and no, I'm NOT saying it as an insult, I'm saying it becuase its true and I can proove it by posting where you say the exact opposire, and if you HR this another day, I'll just HR your HR for abuse, and you Deadhead and I can have this HR war if you want it, I'm notr afraid to let the light of the admi staff here, and that's what's going to happen if you guys keep this up.

  •  Great diary, thanks (0+ / 0-)

    "Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." - Woody Allen

    by blueoregon on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:59:27 AM PST

  •  Not sure this will matter for years (0+ / 0-)

    unless and until it becomes possible to vote via Twitter or Instagram.

    Just sayin'.


    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:03:02 AM PST

  •  Forced conserativism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Given the option, I would vote for LBJ or Carter.  

    If LBJ were alive today he would think President Obama was a Republican.  And to think he ran to the LEFT of Hillary in 08.  Obama 2012 was closer to Reagan 1980 than Mitt Romeny.  George Bush the Elder is only slightly more conservative than President Obama.  

    I like the idea of Millennials being Democrats but I would not call them liberals.  They wouldnt vote for LBJ let alone Huey Long.  Heck most would consider Governor Dean far too extreme and Dean is a Democrat President Carter would have brought in as a "center right" voice.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PST

    •  I don't know about that (4+ / 0-)
      They wouldnt vote for LBJ
      I'm pretty sure Millenials support civil rights and Medicare. They are certainly to the left of any politician of the past on issues like LGBT rights, drug laws and reproductive rights. The country as a whole may have moved right on certain issues but it has also moved left on other ones.

      The Sacramento Bee just published a California poll on marijuana legalization that was just taken, alongside the same poll taken several times in the past. It was interesting to see what the results were in 1969 on marijuana - much, much more conservative than today.

      •  Here is that article (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ksuwildkat, cville townie, Lawrence

        Link - Unfortunately this online version doesn't include the table that was printed in the newspaper showing the results over several years.

        A new Field Poll tracks the increasingly green-friendly attitude of Californians, a decades-long trend that has seen Golden State residents swing from seeking tougher enforcement to favoring the end of pot prohibition. Eight percent of voters backed allowing anyone to purchase cannabis and 47 percent said it should be available with the types of controls, like age verification, that govern alcohol sales.

        Those two groups combined account for 55 percent of voters surveyed, marking a breakthrough for marijuana advocates: It is the first time a Field Poll has discovered clear majority support for legalization. A combined 50 percent backed the notion in 2010, when a legalization ballot initiative went down to defeat.

        In 1969, just 13 percent favored some form of legalization, vastly eclipsed by the 49 percent of voters who believed harsher penalties were the answer. In 1983, the pro-legalization crowd comprised 30 percent of poll respondents.

        •  Medical vs recreational (0+ / 0-)

          I would also posit that in 1969 pot was seen as purely recreational and was the cause of all manner of bad behavior and people becoming addicted from one hit - see Pinto's question to Prof Jennings in Animal House:

           [Handed his first joint]

          Pinto: I won't go schizo, will I?

          Jennings: It's a distinct possibility.

          Today we have a significantly different and more positive view of it as a drug.

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:20:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

            Views on it have changed for the better, as have views on some other stuff too. It's not all bad.

          •  Here's something people MUST consider: weed (0+ / 0-)

            was used by the Feds, Nixon and LBJ, to stop the Left from becoming more politically successful. I'm not stating a bizarre conspiracy theory, I'm stating FACTS from the FOI files from the FBI released during the Carter years. It's a bunch of memos where the program is discussed to spread the use of weed among the left, in order to make them less involved with politics and more spaced out with their lives. This was a coordinated and successful program. People on the left became more into weed and less into politics. We have that danger now too, with legalization. I favor legalization, but I just to warn people about this. It happened back then and we lost elections we could have won as a result. It can happen again.

            •  Oh lord... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jake formerly of the LP

              I smoke weed every day & I live and breath politics. Please stop demonizing the most benign drug on the planet [which if legalized would also become an economic boom for its industrial uses too].

              “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

              by lucid on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:18:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  if only we all lived in CA (2+ / 0-)

        Ms. Wildkat constantly reminds me that Californians are different.  Of course we moved to Colorado where its easier to get pot than Sudafed.  

        I hear you but LBJ would get murdered on Fox for being a communist race baiter.  

        An aside - my first job was delivering news papers.  I delivered the Union but we subscribed to the Bee since the Union was the "conservative" paper.  Most of the "conservative" opeds from those days would get ridiculed by Fox and the WSJ today.  

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:07:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, Fox would hate him (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          What else is new? :) I still think the Millenials would vote for him.

          We subscribe to the Bee, it's a pretty good paper compared with a lot of other regional ones I think. Beats the SF Chronicle by a long shot.

          •  McClatchy has always been more about... (0+ / 0-)

            ...journalism than many other newspaper operations.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:11:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  LBJ hated pot smokers; he was somewhat socially (0+ / 0-)

            conservative, but he hated the counterculture, southern guy traditional. Millenials wouldn't like the way he comported himself, stiff and uptight and somewhat socially conservative. That wouldn't go over well. Also, LBJ being remembered today for all of his great accomplishments with economic liberalism, should not forget he was a war monger and in that respect by being for military adventures and spending his economic orientation diverted resources to the wrong places. That's what did him in, it was uncertain whether he could still win the Democratic Party nomination due to Vietnam, keep in mind his mindset is not economically liberal as a Millenial. He chose to drop out as his polls tanked, and sent his flunky VP who was very liberal but tainted by supporting the War, Humphrey, who lost the election. I'm just trying to give you a picture of how it was back then, since it really is a funny idea to think of LBJ as a progressive or lovable to Millenials when the reality was he culturally represented the old gaurd that really wanted to opress us by drafting us to die in his lousy war, he and the other older folks were waging at our expense.

  •  i'm 30 (11+ / 0-)

    was a fan of bush 43 before he became president( i was 17 at that time and couldnt vote) the iraq war completely changed my views and turned me into a solid democrat. i'm an avid environmentalist, as my national park series will show, to those who have read them and taken the time to comment on them- thanks, i canvassed for obama in 2008 in Milwaukee and got feedback from righties who thought he was a socialist, and black people who didnt think he could win because he was black. He won Wisconsin by 14 points, the largest margin in the state in several decades.i remember that wisconsin was the last state that flashed on the side of the screen when Olbermann called the election for Obama. i admit, i cried. i'm a historian, so i knew how big a deal this was. i didnt expect the republicans to be so hostile and uncooperative to him, but all that has done his driven me further to the left,. i will never vote for a republican again in a race of any importance where there's a d on the ballot.

    •  I'm 30 too (6+ / 0-)

      I came of age a few months after 9/11 and enlisted in the military several months later. I too was a fan of dubya until we went into Iraq with no WMD, and mounting violence. Then when Katrina hit, and so many people suffering as a result of the storm, I started to gradually follow politics more and more often. I didn't vote in 2004 cause I had little interest in politics then, but 2008 for me, like so many other young people, was the watershed moment. When I looked at the Republican and Democratic parties in close up, I decided that I was better identifying more with the Democrats than the Republicans. I donated my money to Obama's campaign and cast my first absentee ballot for him (I was still serving at the time). I too was taken aback by the Republican opposition against him, since given the fact that he'd won decisively and the country was in the grips of the Great Recession, governing would trump politics. Now after five years of complete opposition and sometimes hatred against this man, I'm doubtful at this point that I'll ever be inclined to vote for a Republican candidate.

      •  we need to revive the new deal, and rebuild our (7+ / 0-)

        society. set aside most federal lands as park and preserves if that means half of utah is a park so be it. tear down dams and  rip up canals to let nature restore itself in the west  south and florida. expand the everglades to cover more of southern florida  to basically have cities on the shorelines and the park on the interior. create a department of conservation like fdr tried to in the 30s. unlike his ideas which would have merged the forests with the parks, bring in the existing structures of the parks, forests, FWs and EPa, then add the CCC to round things off. give the new department 100 billion annually, that money is taken out of the military and the pentagon. they'll have to make do with 500 billion a year instead of 600. that money would go to eliminate backlogs in fedferal and state areas, and would provide for much needed work. the Original CCC put 3.2 million to work over 9 years, and then you had t be young, male and white. extend it to everyone over 18 and you could get as many as 15 million working. limit development in many areas of the west where water is limited . infrastructure. you connect the big ities of this country with high speed rail, if freaking Morooco can have, so can we. do stuff to improve the condition of this country, if it doesnt work try something else, but always try. taxes will have to go, mon everyone in order to pay for all this, corporations pay less than half what the did  in the 50s, the effective rate now is 12% back then it was 50%. penalize companies for sticking money in tax havens,force them to repariate it or confiscate it.

  •  I don't recall where I read it (7+ / 0-)

    but i do recall reading studies that indicated people DO NOT become more conservative as they age, though their views on specific issues may change based on changes in circumstances.

    I'm halfway between 62 and 63 years old. Never voted for a Republican. Never will. When I was a kid in NYC, there were Republicans I could perhaps have voted for. Back then there were Republicans who also ran on the Liberal ticket. Those days are long gone.

  •  Millennial here. 26, came of age in 2005. (7+ / 0-)

    I'd have to say in my case the credit goes to my mother for instilling her progressive values in me. She's in the Nixon cohort.
    I became interested in politics around the end of the 90s, and I'll always remember staying up most of the night for the 2000 election and being very unhappy. Being three months shy of being able to vote in 2004 wasn't the best thing, either. But I was able to put my vote in twice for Obama, and I certainly feel that my vote (and contribution) for Senator Al Franken counted for something. :)
    I've also been doing my best to vote in every election, even in odd-year local elections, where I always notice that I seem to be the only person under 40 at my polling place...

    •  Me too! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4Freedom, manyamile, Lawrence

      Your experience completely mirrors mine. Voted for Franken too. Considering he won by what, a few hundred votes? We made the difference in that election. Dayton too.

      I also vote in the odd-year elections. You're not alone, there are some of us around :) I wish we could get everyone else excited about this. Still, we managed a complete democrat takeover of the state government. Not bad considering our neighbors are Wisconsin and the Dakotas.

      Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

      by bull8807 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:52:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good for you on the "every election" stance. (6+ / 0-)

      The right wing fanatics vote consistently.  We have to too.  

      Here's hoping more of your cohort will be there with you in 2014 (along with lots of other age-cohorts, of course).

      I kind of envy your, starting out your voting history with Barack Obama and Al Franken.  In my first presidential election, Nixon won by a landslide.

      Here's hoping that our choices continue to get better over time.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:16:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Millennial here as well. 28. (4+ / 0-)

      2004 was my first election that I voted in. I split ticket that one and only time, Kerry for president and Ken Calvert of the Inland Empire of So-Cal for congress. Then Bush and Iraq war happened and I have been voting straight Democratic ticket since.
       My circle of friends are split (I grew up in what was once a Republican stronghold area of So-Cal, which is now basically a swing area) . A few of them are socially liberal Republicans and a few of us are Democrats. Two of my Democratic friends ONLY vote in presidential elections! I talked one into voting in 2010 and gotten into arguments with another on why she should vote in midterms. Her argument? Presidential elections only matter to me. It's a stalemate with her.

  •  I feel pure Glee (3+ / 0-)

    A New Deal - European Social democracy - left wing true American socialist who served in Vietnam to protect and defend the constitution of this free and always before great nation - in which conservatives and other con artists, crooks, liars and thieves have never been allowed to take over the country and destroy the working classes and the poor.

    Until now.

    Beware!  These are very serious times and the consequences are nearly incomprehensible.


  •  To Destroy the GOP They Have To Vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is there any indication they are motivated to vote in 2014 in any greater numbers than they did in 2010?

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:44:36 AM PST

    •  Since OFA is going to get off it's ass this time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scamperdo, SouthernLeveller, Lawrence

      I think we can see a better turnout.

      2010 was well within historical averages and the older they are the more likely they are to vote, so I'm pretty sure we'll see higher millennial turnout in 2014.

      If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

      by AoT on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:24:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  even if they do vote (0+ / 0-)

      the GOP will not cease to exist.

      And even with elected Democrats, we might still have people like Obama pushing chained CPI which serves the GOP agenda

      Never too early to try to stop Hillary - expatjourno

      by GideonAB on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:04:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are Democratic candidates (0+ / 0-)

      going to talk about anything young voters care about? After doing nothing but passing healthcare, and then running away from it and Obama, most Congressional candidates  ignored young voter issues. Not showing up was an unsurprising, rational reaction to how Congressional Democrats were acting.

  •  the big dividing line within gen x (11+ / 0-)

    is based, IMO, in the stage of the cold war that one began paying attention to politics and the news generally.

    those of us born around '75 and after mostly began to pay attention to the cold war at the moment when the fear of nuclear war and anticommunist sentiment were falling apart. unlike our parents and older aunts and uncles, we knew in our bones that "the russians loved their children too," that they wanted blue jeans and rock and roll, that they didn't want to bury us. gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika and nuclear treaties defined the soviets. revolutions across the eastern bloc proved to us that people everywhere were OK, and loved freedom, and we saw ourselves in the youth knocking down walls and letting go of enmity. the fear of the cold war never really became engrained the same way, and we got over the 9/11 panic quicker, by and large, than our elders who had bigger cold war panic buttons for the right wing to push.

    as a result, we have no special love of capitalism, nor fear of socialism. reagan wasn't inspirational for us the way he was for many older x'ers, and the whole libertarian ethos of selfishness didn't really take with us. sesame street's did. when the dot com bust wrecked the first good shot we had at making it, we started to pay close attention to the deep flaws in capitalism. when the housing bust wrecked our equity right after buying our bubbled-out houses, when austerity laid us off or cut our benefits or jacked up our tuition, we started thinking dark and radical thoughts. even the yuppies among us are becoming increasingly open to talk that used to be crazy radical stuff not long ago. not having the "born at the right time" benefits of the boomers, nor the hard core reagnist leanings of older x'ers, we're free to reevaluate things as they stand.

    while we share the jaded realism (some call it pessimism or cynicism) of older gen x'ers, we do want to believe and hope, something that in turn both excites us and makes us roll our eyes about the millennials' naive optimism. it's why we broke hard for obama in '08, and why many are still pretty upset that he governed more like clinton than candidate obama.

    finally, unlike our boomer parents who actually remember the existence of moderate or liberal republicans, the GOP has always been bat-shit crazy during our political lifetimes. we saw the congressional class of '94 for what they were decades before our elders came around, and as dissatisfied with democrats as we can get, we know that the GOP is insane and evil and not to be trusted. even the conservatives among us tend to refer to themselves as libertarians or independents, out of not wanting to associate themselves with the freak show of the GOP.

    •  Love the Sting reference! (3+ / 0-)

      "The Russians love their children too"!

    •  I would expand that date further (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming

      as it seems to encompass my contemporaries as well - '72.

      “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

      by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:25:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it might also have to do with cultural (4+ / 0-)


      By the time I was in middle school and high school ['85-'90] the yuppie, preppy crap was already being eschewed. Punk rock was finally filtering into the midwestern culture that I grew up in & kids were listening to The Dead Kennedy's and even Sonic Youth [though that was more like '89-'90]. REM was the most popular band - a decidedly anti-Republican influence.

      “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

      by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:31:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what are our high schools like today? (4+ / 0-)

        I believe the college-age kids are basically still alright — despite the poor job prospects, that actually means more people are trying to get an education and a start without spending a ton of money (relatively speaking) to do it. For the most part, there's actually still more idea of common cause and less entitlement.

        What about our middle and high schools, now crammed underneath a decade or more of Every Child Left Behind and now Race to the Bottom? How is the impoverishment of broad education in favor of rote learning affecting the next generation?

        •  A very good question (3+ / 0-)

          I for one know that if I were in high school today, I would have been expelled repeatedly due to the no-tolerance policies and the fact that I have little respect for authority. Of course, when I was in high school, such behaviour was tolerated from people who got straight A's.

          “It takes no compromise to give people their takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

          by lucid on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 05:47:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm hoping we're (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lucid, Cassandra Waites

            starting to walk back on that.

            I went to a private school for a couple years because the local system (run by clueless rednecks) was notorious for that kind of thing. A couple of First Amendment lawsuits put them a bit more in check, but it was cultural change locally and demand by moderate parents that seems to have caused them to be a lot nicer in the last decade, contrary to national trends.

        •  I'm impressed as hell w/my freshman class at (3+ / 0-)

          St Louis U who all just graduated HS last year.  It's a private, Jesuit but huge research u with a big medical-tech footprint in STL.  About half my kids are from (good) public HSs, the rest are from private/parochial.  They are all at least as progressive as me on most measures.  They undoubtedly represent the top 5th if not top 10th socioeconomic tier, but I'll take it.

          FWIW, all my other teaching is for area schools that represent the bottom 5th of the tier, but often they're also not straight out of HS (that in itself is a class privilege).  They're also mostly progressive as hell, from their own city-of-StLouis experiences.   xept I guess gay marriage is a bit controversial...

          •  Yeah, but (0+ / 0-)

            The oldest Xers are about 50 now, and that would place their oldest kids around 20. But I don't think you have more kids of Xers than boomers until you get below the age of 15 or so. Note that the baby echo boom (from boomers having kids) ended around 1998, 15 years ago. So I'll be interested to see what happens with the kids who are barely in high school now.

            That said, the upside is that there weren't so many Xers in the first place and they didn't have so many kids. With the youngest at 38 the kids of millennials will be larger in number after 2010 or so. It's a pretty narrow generational window, and their numbers are squeezed at each end because of the "baby bust".

            •  ? I'm 50 and I'm not an X-er, I'm a "Jones." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Which to me just shows that those generational designations are pretty meaningless, or at least much too vague for the kind of math you're doing.  Instead, why don't you just ask college and HS teachers what their students are actually like?  :-)   I mean, no offense to demographic analysis or anything, but jeez...

              •  Here's my point: it's irrelevant to me, born in (0+ / 0-)

                '63, whether I'm a late boomer or a Jones or an Oldest X-er (though I'm not, if you go back and read the book).  This diary was about the changing politics of young people, 1st-time voters and soon-to-be-voters.  When I started teaching around '90, my students were college freshmen and sophomores.  23 years later, they're freshman and sophomores; and god willing that will still be the case for another 15-20 years.   I certainly watch their politics shifting over that time, just like their facial-hair fashions.  I'm quite heartened, these days, by how progressive they are on social issues and how pissed off they are (even the elite ones) about the egregious inequality of the econ system.

                But when I meet my SLU class for exams on the 17th I'll ask them if they feel they're "Baby echo boom."  The question might take some explaining though...

    •  I'm glad you mentioned Perestroika as influence (4+ / 0-)

      That period between 1989 and desert Storm was a brief moment when the world seemed like it was on the right track.

    •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

      agree wholeheartedly.  You encapsulate it perfectly.

    •  1990-91 recession mattered too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      QuelleC, wu ming

       I'm 39, graduated HS in 1992, and identified as Republican until probably 17 or so. But a huge turning point for me was the 1990-91 "grunge recession", where my Dad lost his job, and I had to move before my senior year. It told me that a lot could be taken away very quickly, and solved any Reagan-era delusions I might have about supply side. I voted for Clinton 2 months after turning 18, and his victory and that feeling was very influential as a young person.

        And as I've gotten older, worked more, and learned more, it's made me a LOT more liberal. I gladly was at the Wisconsin Capitol many times in the Uprising of 2011, and the only time I haven't voted Dem in a presidential election was in 2000 for Nader, despite working in the financial industry at the time (I lived in Indiana at the time and Bush won the state by 20 points, so no, it didn't make a difference).

         Iraq and the Bush years made me a liberal for life, as if I doubted it before. And Walker made me less tolerant of being nice about it.

  •  What is wrong with my generation... (5+ / 0-)

    I've never understood this.

    I'm 42 - Reagan/Bush Gen X.
    The phrase 'radical left' underestimates me, and always has.

    I was blindsided in my adult years to learn how conservative my generation was as a whole.

    I've never quite explained it. My only theory is a counter reaction to being the first generation born after integration and things like 'school busing'. Not because these things were bad - but because our parents armed us to the teeth with xenophobia before putting us on that bus.
    - But I always believed this was just a weird oddity of bad luck in what areas I grew up in and being a target of it as a mixed race kid, and not a national thing.

    Was it just Reagan's charisma, and Rush's loud mouthery, and the 'framing' of the term 'politically correct'?

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:57:56 AM PST

    •  I think you're right about post-civil rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Either people born after that era took it for granted  or there was a backlash against progressive policies for minorities.

      Also you came of age during the religious backlash and evocation of the mythical family values, nostalgia for 1950s  TV America.

      And during your generation the "hip" people were raised on Nirvana: it's good to be apathetic.

      •  Good point on the backlash thing (0+ / 0-)

        Lots of backlash, and an intense era of commercialism as a value.

        My afternoons and Saturdays were mostly spent watching 30 minute animated commercials. That still happens, but people are more aware of it now and kids have more varied media sources.

        OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

        by Jyotai on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:28:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nirvana and grunge actually signified the end (3+ / 0-)

        of the conservative Gen X generation, imo.

        That's when being anti-commercialism started going mainstream.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:41:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Everyone born after Star Wars came out..." (5+ / 0-)

    That's the money quote there.

    Republicans: They hate us for our Freedom.

    by mikeconwell on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:01:20 PM PST

  •  Progressive freak from Reagan/Bush 1 Era here (6+ / 0-)

    Most of my time period is a political wasteland, I'm afraid to say.  Reagan is still a demigod to many of my contemporaries.  I do remember how young voters being so conservative and Republican was a tremendous source of pride for the Right in the '80's.  Really made them think the future was theirs.  

    I am curious to see how this next generation comes together. Technically, this generation is the children of Generation X, the early Reagan/Bush 1 part.  Generations usually tend to take after their parents politicially so this one may be kind of conservative.  We shall see, I guess.

    As for Reagan, as was the case with FDR, I don't think his grip on the American political psyche will be loosened until a majority of Americans only know him from the history books.

    •  It is weird (4+ / 0-)

      I am the same era as you. First election I was eligible to vote, I voted for Mike Dukakis (oy).

      I find these polls jarring because virtually everybody I know my age is a Democrat, so I'm not sure where all the Republicans from our era are, but I know they are out there somewhere.

      •  Where are the Republicans in early Gen X? (4+ / 0-)

        Not here but I sure as heck with to high school, college and law school with a lot of them.  I still know a lot of them.  I see it on Facebook with the political comments made by friends, most of whom are my generational contemporaries.  I swear, reading my facebook feed before last year's election made it seem like Romney would win in a landslide.

        •  And it should be noted that... (2+ / 0-)

          ...I have lived my entire life (aside from a 10 month stint in the USVI in the early '90's) in the Northeast, the so-called most liberal part of the country.  Specifically, I grew up in New Jersey.  Many of my contemporaries still in the Garden State have transferred their Reagan idolization to Christie.

        •  Alas, those would be my co-workers. (3+ / 0-)

          I am one of 2 early Gen Xers in my office who is on the left side of the spectrum.

          Everyone else our age is a Gingrich Republican.  Of course, that surely has something to do with being in the northern Atlanta exurbs...

        •  I don't get it either (0+ / 0-)

           Vast majority of the people I hang with are liberal/ Dem, as are most of the people in my age cohort (39-40). Some of this may be because I'm educated and live in Madison, Wisconsin, but I've never gotten the sense that my generation is filled with righties. But then I look at polls and my age group is where Walker often does best, and I have no explanation for it (a lot of the less-educated types that support Walker would also have kids in school right now).

             It seems to be part of the "great sort", where guys my age that live in cities aren't going to be voting the same as someone the same age who lives in rural America or some scared Milwaukee suburb. But our references are generally similar, so it's odd.

  •  What we are looking at here is the meeting of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, waterstreet2013, Lawrence

    three main themes: rejection of religion, improved education, and global connection.

    Young people are less religious than ever, and even people who are not getting a good education or have Jesus-freak parents can still self-education and explore over the internet.

    Connection with other people across vast distances, news of the world, everything is available on the internet.

    All of these mix together to form our societal evolution.

    There was mention of appreciation of some young people for the Libertarian movement, and that's true - but the discirmination, and the Jesus-abortion/anti-science/anti-female/anti-gay bullshit just won't fly.

    The size and regulations of government, the levels of freedom vs security, those will always be open to debate.

    But the nonsense social issues of the Christian GOP? Those are outdated.

    The more they cling to them, the more the Republican party's power will plummet as these young people get older, and have more children.

    Societal evolution can be slowed, damaged, or twisted, but never stopped. Not forever. Knowledge is indeed power.

    Their sad devotion to that ancient religion won't help them conjure up any newer voters, or give them clairvoyance enough to see what they are doing to themselves.

    •  That's about right. Religions of exclusion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prinny Squad

      in particular are failing. One example of this is that there are now more ex-Mormons than Mormons.

      For the GOP, though, Ronald Reagan is a different proposition altogether.

      That over-the-top funeral for him reflected just how theatrical it's gotten. The GOP propagandists have written a fictional bio for his presidency. In truth, Ronnie was a carbon copy of Tricky:

      Reagan = Nixon

      Reagan didn't have a Vietnam. Otherwise he was a racist, a war monger, and a nasty class warrior on top of it.

      Hoaxes 101: Ronald Reagan's 1980 States-Rights Speech in Mississippi Didn't Happen No More

      Hoaxes 101: Reagan Used Naval Guns to Kill 1,500 Lebanese. Now Those Murders Didn't Happen No More

      And getting Americans killed can be erased from the public/media history:

      Hoaxes 101: Reagan Losing 241 at Beirut in 1983 Didn't Happen No More

      Nixon is known for his crimes. With Reagan the GOP and the corporations spare no effort and no expense to cover up for him.

      Nixon's "Christmas bombing" in 1972 killed 10,000 Vietnamese to create a PR stunt, distracting from signing a surrender. Reagan killed 1,500 Arabs at Beirut in 1982/84 for nothing more than "Teach them a lesson" racist madness. Reagan also allowed a slaughter of thousands of women and children at the Beirut refugee camps (Sabra and Shatila) by pulling out the U.S. Peacekeepers protecting them.

      Nixon died a pariah. Not one American in a hundred knows the Dark Side actions of Reagan. Thing is, those two were about the same, apart from Nixon's problems with paranoia.

      Today the Reagan Hoax is a major propaganda asset for the GOP. Almost as important as abortion. For their voters he defines "conservative."

      Helluva hoax, eh?

  •  Wordly experience solidified my liberalism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Reagan is the first political leader whose agenda and its consequences got me paying attention.  (I was a teen/college student then.)

    I was "refudiating" pretty much all Republicanism, refudiating it pretty damn hard, by the time I graduated college.  

    •  Going to College under Ray Gun (7+ / 0-)

      was the worst.  I had an overwhelming sense of dread while driving to my state college in my 74 VW Superbeetle only to interact with young preppie republicans who apparently stayed that way. My first vote was for Carter's second term.  I'm three weeks younger than President Obama.  I don't consider myself a boomer.  There's something called Generation Jones.

      •  Yes, us Generation Jones are different from the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        older Baby Boomers. I've got three older siblings who were boomers, and it was an entirely different range of experiences, especially in college.

        Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

        “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”
        – Nelson Mandela, proof that the final form of love is forgiveness.

        by smileycreek on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:55:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  some of my classmates were those young preppies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but others of us were active in AIDS awareness, anti-apartheid shantytown on the campus quad, pushing back on the racism of the Bush '88 Willie Horton ad, etc.  The mid to late 80s were a mixed bag, in terms of the politics on campus.  It wasn't all smug preppie-yuppie scum among my generation, not by a long shot.  Some of that, but a LOT of not-that. College '85-'89 here.

  •  OMG my first comment ever! (10+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately my son who is 24 and lots of friends the past few years seem to buy into the false equivalency idea.  And politics these days make them sad and overwhelmed.  He has a friend who is sorry he majored in poli-sci because he thinks it's futile.

    They're definitely more socially liberal and willing to volunteer, so it seems like they're liberal.   But they're young enough to never know what it was like to have a pension or even sick days.  They've never been treated well in the workplace and think this is normal. Still, they know the labor market sucks and they wonder why they should stay in college. They're not convinced government can or should help them since the status quo has been "government IS the problem" since I was in college.  I talk to them all about the importance of voting.

    •  Welcome! (0+ / 0-)

      It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

      by Desert Rose on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:16:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  welcome! (0+ / 0-)

      False equivalence is an issue, but it comes and goes depending on the issue.  Its erosion of trust in the public sector in general probably means here and there a few more bright minds won't consider running for office or working for state government or whatever, which is a shame.  But ultimately we need services that only the government can provide, and although different people realize this at different points in their lives most of us, thankfully, do at some point realize it and appreciate that our government is there and functioning and has anticipated our needs to some degree (safety, regulation, safety nets, etc.).  Here's hoping your son and his friends begin to experience less dysfunctional government at some point soon and are refreshed by how much it can do.

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:26:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  read the diary (0+ / 0-)

    but I could not find the part about the destruction of the GOP.

    I suspect the GOP will be alive and well in two months time.  So much for preparation?

    Never too early to try to stop Hillary - expatjourno

    by GideonAB on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:55:06 PM PST

    •  two months yes... ten years? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, cville townie

      It's a paradox for them.  They simply can't PR their way out of it.  They only exist as a party if they keep social conservatives and fiscal conservatives and angry white people and tea partiers under one roof.  But the positions those groups demand make attracting young people increasingly impossible.  And while one never knows how many social conservatives or fiscal conservatives there may be in ten or twenty years, one knows for sure that there will be a bajillion voting millennials and young gen xers.  So the GOP is really in an existential bind.  That's the concept.  

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:21:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  read Tipping Point (0+ / 0-)

      these things tend to look stable....right up until they suddenly fall apart.

      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

      by ksuwildkat on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 07:11:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I turned 18 a month after the '88 election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrumpyOldGeek, Square Knot

    so the 1st presidential vote I cast was for Bill Clinton. I have never understood those of my peers who support the GOP. I guess it's because they were privileged white kids who never wanted for anything. Many of them looked down their noses at me bc I didn't get a car on my 16th bday (quelle horreur) and I didn't have a credit card to go shopping whenever I wanted (and the sight of my inter-racial parents really flipped a few of them out!).

    I'm sure none of them ever worried they would lose their home because their parent lost a job, or considered that college might not be an option without financial aid or a scholarship.

    I will be a progressive Democrat until the day I die - I simply can't fathom ever voting for a party that has tried to take away my rights due to my gender, my race(s), my (non)religion and so many other things that put them on the wrong side of history in the 21st century.

    I haven't missed voting in an election, local or national, since I turned 18 - my rights are too important to let a bunch of rich, ignorant bigots and their stooges take them away.

    -7.75, -6.97 Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge. -Mark Twain

    by Chirons apprentice on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 02:19:55 PM PST

  •  I came of age in late 60s "age of acquarius" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...and I recall how utterly convinced we were that our "baby boom" generation promised to bring enormously transformational positive change to the country and to the world, rejecting the dysfunctional, regressive, repressive ways of our parents' generation.  Peace, man!

    It never happened.  Unfortunate events such as the assasination of Robert Kennedy (who probably would have won the presidency in 1968 otherwise), the unwise excess of some in the protest movement, and the ironically perverse timing of Jimmy Carter winning in 1976 coinciding with economic stagflation and the Iran Hostage crisis (all of which would have occurred had Gerald Ford won in 1976) set the country on a very different course than seemed likely in the mid to late 1960s.  And frankly, too many in our generation who seemingly were seemingly progressive-minded in their early 20s wound up being bourgeois right-wing grumps.  Think of all the pot-smoking longhairs who wound up that way by the time they were in their early 30s or even sooner, only superficially into the counterculture and verbally supporting activism in order to join the good-times party, not really the cause.

  •  Color me unsentimental about the youth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You'd think we'd learn the lesson from the hippies: there's a difference between walking the walk and wearing subculture as a fad. I'll take an 80 year old lady who makes quilts for the homeless over a 23 year old who wears a Che T-shirt to a cocktail party.

  •  I'm glad you pointed out the Gen-X split (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013, kat68

    I've always been mystified as why Gen-Xers are normally classified as GOP leaners, when so few of the ones I know seem that way. I've lived in or traveled to several states so it didn't seem to me to be the "walled garden" effect (only associating with people just like you). I'm a few years older than the cut off, but close enough to it that it helps to shed some light on the subject.


    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 03:21:54 PM PST

  •  Millennial voting patterns (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bull8807, smogie03, Cassandra Waites

    The Millennials twice voted overwhelmingly for Obama.  Romney only got about a third of their votes.  My kids and their friends certainly did not vote GOP in 2012. If they vote Dem in strong numbers for the 2016 candidate, they will be likely to vote Democratic for most of their lives, just like the young FDR Democrats did in the 1930's.

    Millennials are also more racially mixed than previous generations. The GOP looks more like an old white peoples' party in complexion and ideology.  The GOP just doesn't have positions that resonate with the 20 somethings.

    BTW, you can tell a "Gen Z" from a Millennial by whether or not they remember 9/11. If he or she is too young to remember, they are from a generation younger than the Millennials.

  •  I'm a Nixon Boomer College Professor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrumpyOldGeek, manyamile

    I started teaching in 1980 and was amazed at how much my students supported Reagan (they supported him even more in 1984).  This was quite a contrast from just eight years before when I was a college freshman during the Nixon-McGovern election.  The majority of my classmates then were for McGovern.

  •  This is one of the best "generation" diaries... (6+ / 0-)

    ...I've read at Daily Kos...ever. Its finest features: No bashing of any generations; no generational warfare. Kudos.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:17:08 PM PST

    •  It's because I finally restrained myself. I think (0+ / 0-)

      it's the vallium...

      But I agree: it's good.  Possibly bc the original diarist and so many commenters focused on very specific benchmarks, like prez elections and terms, rather thn DOB ranges which to me seem silly/arbitrary.

    •  thank you! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What a humbling comment, thanks, seriously.  I didn't think there was all that much to the diary, to be honest, but I'm glad it got a good reception and of course I think it's an intriguing bit of research to share and discuss.  Totally agree though on the lack of bashing (and I'm pleased the comments were pretty positive as well) -- that never makes much sense to me.  People can't control when they were born or what happened to them to shape their beliefs; no reason to bash anyone.  We're all on the same team here :)

      Keep up your amazing work.

      I know it sounds like I'm in denial but I'm not.

      by Save the clock tower on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:01:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So South will flip right before it drowns from mel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ting Antarctica and Greenland.

    Typical of the a**holes who took it over since the '70s, squeeze every dollar out until you ruin something, then skip out.

  •  I am STILL amazed and saddened by the number of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    right wing idiots among my early Boomers - I liked to think we were a lot better than that, but every day I am again reminded we were not. We DID get some great things done, and I hope the current right extremism that grips out country leaves a few of them in its wake. I am still donating to  left/progressive groups and politicians all over the US, and I strongly urge others to do the same as they are able.''

    I hope you young people do it...Our country really can and should be a wonderful place to live.

    Bring me the head of Geraldo Rivera.

    by old mark on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:18:56 PM PST

  •  I orefer the term (3+ / 0-)

    "Joneser." Children born past 1955 cannot really be a part of the baby-boom. By then things were stable and making babies was again part of the background radiation of American life.

  •  I'm just over the "bar" at 39 (0+ / 0-)

    Anecdotally, those I know around my age (such as all my old Marine buddies on facebook) are half liberal, about a quarter nutbag redneck specially challenged conservative, and about a quarter I-like-my-weed-and-guns libertarian.  Millennials do give me hope for the future (though admittedly, I seldom understand them).  The generation after them (those who are now kids through early teens) is who will really count, because climate change and the eventual devolution of global capitalism into whatever-turd-pile-comes-next will weigh on them the furthest into the future.

    Col. Brandt: "What do you think we'll do when we lose the war?" Capt. Kiesel: "Prepare for the next one." --from "Cross of Iron"

    by ConservatismSuxx on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 06:43:21 PM PST

  •  Rodney King and the Berlin Wall (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites

    I don't think the cutoff is 37 years old. I think it's a gray area of those between 37 and 41.  Why? Think of the people born between 1972 and 1976 - where were they when they turned 18?  1990-94.  It was during the real collapse of the Reagan era.  But this cohort interpreted the Bush I disaster in different ways. Some doubled down on the right wing populism and viewed the whole world as run by entitled and naive liberals whose reverse discrimination policies led to the crack wave and crime.  But others saw the economic hypocrisy of the right, the putrid authoritarianism of the anti-drug nuts, and the last-gasp imperialism of the post-Cold War Right in the Persian Gulf War.  

    Two iconic events in 1989-1990 changed things: the beating of Rodney King and the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Those two events, broadcast on television, conveyed both the outrage at the Reagan-era police state and continuing racism in society...and the hope of a post-Cold War world defined by hope instead of fear.  

    The 1992 election captured this change, with the insurgent Jerry Brown campaign, and the Ross Perot campaign that dislodged many older GenXers for a bit.  While the Right got a last dig in with 1994, the follow-up was a solidifying of younger GenXers around Clinton by 1996. As younger adults started moving back into cities and crime started to drop, the comfort level of young people for the Democratic Party rose.  It hasn't turned back since.

    So I'd put the turning point in the age cohort of 37-41. I'm 40 myself and can still see the divides of my generation, which was beginning to tilt to the left.

    •  Not just hope, when it comes to the Berlin Wall. (0+ / 0-)

      I was just old enough for it to be my first international news memory. Didn't understand what was going on at the time, but I knew the adults were glued to the TV and something important was going on.


      Change was good.

      Change was Nat. Geo. World magazine sending out yet another inflatable globe to everyone, not just new subscribers, because the Soviet Union's border had moved eastward again. (which was good, because those things got leaks fast)

      Change was families reunited in Berlin.

      Change wasn't fearing what domino would fall next, it was people being happy to watch the news wondering which would fall next and cheering when it did.

      And when you enter into adulthood or teenagerhood or rememberable childhood with 'the world is changing and isn't it awesome?' as the framework with which you watch the evening news, the world is a very different place.

      It's related to hope, but it's the hope that things keep getting better instead of the hope that things will stay as they are instead of getting worse.

      I think that was part of what threw some of the people in my cohort when al Qaida started being visible in the late '90s and when the wars began. We'd never had to fear the evening news before, not like that. And even now, we still remember that it was possible to not be afraid of the evening news.

  •  The trend isn't that much of a surprise. (0+ / 0-)

    At some point, you hate yourself into a corner. The joke about even Regan not being able to get elected today is true. The republicans have just become too extreme to appeal to anyone outside old white guys. And it's obvious that's all they care about. Now, if they actually stop listening to the baggers, who knows whether or not that will change but for right now, they've shot themselves in the foot.

    I don't think this change is carved in stone. It is largely the result of a lack of options. Dems or a party of old people that only care about old people. Not much choice there. We can only hope the GOP doesn't wise up anytime soon. Remember, most people vote their own interests (or what they think is their interests). There's no reason to believe the millennials are any different.

  •  Reagan/Bush Gen X-er here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Yes, my demographic peers end up being pretty much lame Freepers more often than not.

    They thought Huey Lewis was new wave.  Seriously.  So their wanna-be geezer-freepishness is not at all surprising.

    'snakes as you know have a mortal fear of.........tile'

    by OneCharmingBastard on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 09:31:06 PM PST

  •   today's RNC email to 20 somethings.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    As a 23 year old -- I am sick and tired of Barack Obama taking advantage of my generation.

    The President knows the success of ObamaCare hinges on young people like me enrolling.

    It's time Young Americans understand the truth about why our premiums are doubling, why we're losing our doctors, and why we might have to choose between paying for school and paying for health care.

    Here's the truth: ObamaCare is screwing us over.

    Donate today to help me educate young Americans about Obama's gimmicks.

    •  Typical GOP. No mention of subsidies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      or that you can buy a catastrophic policy on the cheap that has a very high deductible.

      That Black guy is out to getcha !!

    •  They expect them to be unquestioning (0+ / 0-)

        Nice try GOP, but I don't think young people who have grown up in an era of lies getting us into Iraq, the NSA scandals, and banksters crashing our economy aren't going to randomly trust ANYTHING they're told. Especially by a Republican.

         This is a big reason why they lose millenials- GOPs rely on authoritarianism and acceptance of unquestioning masses. After what the Millenials have been through, they're too smart to trust anyone on sight.

  •  Huh. Borderline Boomer/GenX here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I first voted during Reagan's election.  I had to vote Dem because I couldn't bring myself to vote for someone that callous, wrong, shallow and stupid.  That's been pretty much the case ever since then.

  •  I came of age in '80 (2+ / 0-)

    Voted for Carter in my first election and was horrified by the Reagan landslide.  My generation (Carter boomers) and the one immediately following (Reagan Gen Xers) are THE problem: By and large, these age groups are the ones that gave us the rightwing menace. I've been fighting a losing battle and am glad to see the tide turning--though it'd be nice to see more progressive policy victories more quickly--before I die.

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

    by SouthernLeveller on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 06:47:08 AM PST

  •  Jesus, do I hate to be grouped under "Eisenhower (0+ / 0-)

    silent." When I got to college I already admired Adlai Stevenson in public life, hung around with "ban the bombers"
    and campus rebels, and hated 'frat rats." My God, I even listened to communists, socialists, and lovers of Fidel Castro.
    I wore a "hands off Cuba" button and was challenged on it by my conservative roommates who majored in engineering.

    (Of course, after I ridiculed "old man Eisenhower" when he came to the UCLA campus in 1960, turns out his lasting prescience about the "military-industrial complex" came to loom large in my estimation of him.)

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:09:50 AM PST

  •  Clinton Gen X (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake formerly of the LP

    I'm a Clinton Gen X and if anything I've been getting more liberal/progressive with age.

    Not to say I'm at all representative of anything ... but that's my story.

    A study I'd be interested in is about a relationship between internet use/access and politics. With the internet you have access to so many types of ideas ... so much information. It seems that as young people access this information the chances of them remaining conservative (if brought up that way by their parents) decreases.

  •  Millenials (0+ / 0-)

    "4) The idea that young, idealistic, naive voters tend to side with progressives until they age into mature, worldly realists and start voting for conservatives seems to be (at least partially) debunked by this chart."

     Debunk a myth? What a concept!

  •  Very cool diary. (0+ / 0-)

        Most interesting to me is the poll & how many Millennials there are represented. (Note: earlier, it was more balanced) One my age 62, worries of the disillusionment meme. Along with they aren't worried about spying privacy meme. Appreciate your interesting vibes.
        All labeled gens get their conditioning.
        1st though "Boomer." The first boomer generation of our/a centuries time was the WWI generation {my parents} (during the war, after the war), they then became the "Greatest Generation" fighters in WWII. BOOMER was the gens, born during and after WWII that extended to the Viet Nam war, the kids of WW II, to young to fight also adding to the "boom" and the "boom" then continuing by the kids born just after after WW II, having kids during Viet Nam & after along with late bloomers from the WW II gen. One BIG "boomer" period. Simplified: WW I gens to WW II gens, to this God damned 13 years longwars, basically being the Greatest Gens, Greatest Grandkids. Enough WAR already!
        Back to the cool post, I apologize. I live in LA, I'm continually stunned with the Millennials. I see Millennials in clothing takes, mixed music takes, of past gens that I remember, let alone past down home, that fill me with total optimism that they will accomplish the change because boring is not something that is in their collective consciousness. May the previous gens look to the Millennials and pick up on being, dressing, music, whatever that completes themselves. We were young once, tune in. Listen. These kids aren't dumb, please don't meme them.
        I was driving down the street the other day & there was this long line of younger "people" waiting to get into a 'sample' sale, sooo in my best W.C. Fields I yelled out the window, "Rags, Rags,  RAGS, I tell ya!" hoping I'd elicit a laugh. I laughed for 5 minutes… and I'm thinking…
        P.S. I've never seen Hollywood so discombob(g)ulated as to how to hook younger gens in all my days. LONG war boring.
         P.P.S. WW I started in 1914

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:20:49 PM PST

  •  Do 'millenials' vote? (0+ / 0-)

    Biggest problem in quest to "destroy GOP", IMHO,  is getting millenials to vote every November, not just in Presidential election years.

  •  I hate to burst your bubble. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I understand the changing demographics and progressive tendencies, however, I wouldn't celebrate just yet.  The conservative, business and war agenda is being advanced no matter who is in office.  They are stacking the courts, gerrymandering the vote, raising huge amounts of money,etc. and influencing both parties.  

    Does it ever seem like no one is listening sometimes?  The voters wanted the war to stop and they wanted Guantanamo to close but it didn't happen.  People want Wall Street held accountable but how many have gone to jail?  Almost no one.  The rich still have their money off shore.  Military contractors are getting no-bid contracts.  I could go on and on, but until you can elect large numbers of progressives there is little hope.

    The news media, which has been greatly consolidated, focuses on select subjects and skips or glosses over others.   The mainstream press is not functioning as it should, which means the powerful are not held accountable, largely.  For all of these reasons, our democracy is just about finished as far as I can tell.  I wish there was cause for hope but I have little.  While I do vote, send letters, make calls, donate money to progressives, I do see a few victories, but the really big issues like civil rights, privacy, war, income inequality, global trade deals, etc.  all seem to be lost causes.  I hope that I turn out to be wrong in the end, but it doesn't look too good to me.          

    •  The fight won't be over while (0+ / 0-)
      The voters wanted the war to stop and they wanted Guantanamo to close
      voters still feel that way. More folks than currently vote feel that way. Our rich elites and the empire haven't won...though they may be winning. They'll vote also when
      they have candidates they believe in.

      The trick is getting those candidates in light of all the true conditions you mention.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      The Americas greatest political dynasty...the Kaan

      by catilinus on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 02:48:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vote (0+ / 0-)

    Yes that is true and the Republicans know this. That is why the big push for the pole tax, stop the vote, make it as hard to vote as possible, keep people away from the poles. It is there number one thing now, even more then A H C.

  •  too bad (0+ / 0-)

    since I am 64 I will probably never get to see a true blue America taking care of the country.  Animal farms shut down, more parks declared, universal health care, better schools, defense department cut in half(at least),us pulling out of all the countries we have war bases in.  I have been an armchair activist all my life.  I believe I was born a liberal. So sad.  What a mess we have made of this planet.

  •  Can't respond to demographic "poll": (0+ / 0-)

    The problem is that the categories are just inaccurate enough to exclude me.

    I was born in early 1964. This makes me a member of the tail of the Baby Boom, not the "Generation X" cohort, although I am not yet fifty.

    Why is this important?

    The distinction may seem trivial unless one has lived it. Being born at the end of a population bulge has many consequences, mostly economic. It means, for example, that one is in competition for jobs and resources already mostly secured by one's elders in that bulge, and in turn it means that one is likely condemned to spend one's existence scrabbling for leftovers.

    Some of us have learnt not to scapegoat, but I suspect (okay, more than suspect, thanks to extensive conversations) that many others blame immigrants, racial minorities and other convenient targets for our inability to thrive. Of course, this is abetted by a media environment that traditionally encourages division among the less affluent classes, and opportunistically points to the target groups as the cause of tail-enders' woes.

    Consumer culture is a moral anesthetic that numbs our souls against the pinpricks of outraged conscience.

    by Abdel Irada on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 09:43:28 AM PST

  •  Please hear me on this! (0+ / 0-)

    I 'came of age' under Reagan (born in '57 - first voted in 1980) and I'm utterly ASHAMED to admit, I voted for Reagan the first time...It took a few of my peer 'elders' to school me, but I got the message the next time and from then on, I've voted Progressive.  There is a tendency to 'shoot from the hip' when you're young and vote for the one who offers you some 'shiny candy' (tax breaks/no Gov. "interference"/Welfare queens etc.) in the impetuousness of youth. 'Simple answers' to  complicated questions, so to speak.  

    YOUNG PEOPLE, please do not be fooled as I was by such drivel from those who would USE you for their selfish purposes.  When choosing the 'lesser of two evils' if that is all you're (admittedly) given...choose the democrat.  Unless of course you are a coddled/spoiled rich child who wants to remain so.  Read the story of The Buddha for some context.  You'll see what I mean.

Thumb, Alumbrados, TXdem, Phoenix Woman, Radiowalla, Odysseus, jotter, kaleidescope, Shockwave, wu ming, Jay C, eeff, SpinsterLibrarian, Sandy on Signal, Radical Faith, Creosote, JLFinch, bronte17, smugbug, wonkydonkey, Cassandra77, susakinovember, whenwego, ehavenot, teresahill, CoolOnion, roses, Alna Dem, dksbook, Redfire, ksuwildkat, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, Lawrence, wdrath, NYFM, CarbonFiberBoy, Steven Payne, Brian82, Lilith, Matt Esler, FlyingToaster, Sembtex, KellyB, randallt, KayCeSF, Limelite, rapala, CPT Doom, davidincleveland, bloomer 101, radarlady, greycat, ichibon, blueyedace2, Erik the Red, dewtx, Tod, YucatanMan, Gary Norton, reflectionsv37, eru, Sun Tzu, Ice Blue, sunbro, kaliope, Tool, Savvy813, FindingMyVoice, bunsk, third Party please, snazzzybird, BachFan, tarheelblue, myboo, cybersaur, tobendaro, Themistoclea, Gorette, raptavio, cookseytalbott, koNko, NBBooks, 4Freedom, gpoutney, The Hindsight Times, Rosaura, Libby Shaw, doinaheckuvanutjob, llbear, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, Bernie68, markthshark, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, Cronesense, tgypsy, camlbacker, devis1, ColoTim, offgrid, gloriana, EdSF, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, wildweasels, jeanette0605, deepeco, sfbob, Bridge Master, leonard145b, TDDVandy, Assaf, TomP, JDWolverton, mconvente, JeffW, wayoutinthestix, modulegirl, Aureas2, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, elwior, jamess, Lujane, Cassandra Waites, hwmnbn, Jeff Y, Liberal Of Limeyland, chemborg, JBL55, 207wickedgood, maggiejean, Glacial Erratic, janmtairy, kat68, sillycilla, elziax, TheOpinionGuy, papahaha, stevenwag, moviemeister76, ArthurPoet, Tortmaster, GWinkler, Larsstephens, Railfan, hotdamn, cezariusz, commonmass, coppercelt, confitesprit, NJpeach, gramofsam1, catwho, piers, mookins, dagnome, RJP9999, Eddie L, pixxer, paradise50, Puddytat, nirbama, ericlewis0, soaglow, slice, rmabelis, TheHalfrican, theKgirls, Front Toward Enemy, MidwestTreeHugger, vahana, iowacaucus, BlueJessamine, Seitanist, Teknocore, THirt, asterkitty, mikejay611, boomerchick, thomask, BarackStarObama, muddy boots, MPociask, LSmith, worldlotus, wintergreen8694, enhydra lutris, Square Knot, myrmecia gulosa, VTCC73, old mark, goleft333, blue aardvark, ratcityreprobate, SteelerGrrl, joanbrooker, caryltoo, Auriandra, hulibow, Eowyn9, OldDragon, isabelle hayes, cwsmoke, pistolSO, ahumbleopinion, rustypatina, oldcrow, tb92, a2nite, chicagobleu, peachcreek, MartyM, doroma, Brown Thrasher, avsp, splintersawry, ItsaMathJoke, dotdash2u, Robynhood too, CalBearMom, Master Alchemi, mythatsme, Blue Bell Bookworm, David Satterlee, BKGyptian89, Linda1961, BroadBlogs, bogieshadow, HedwigKos, Dewstino, SheilaKinBrooklyn, ORswede, Smoh, nice marmot, Jim Domenico, ChristineM, OceanDiver, ekgrulez1, OregonWetDog, skepticalcitizen, TheDuckManCometh, Charger72, palmer18, Mark Mywurtz, patbahn, Penny GC, gnosticator, LizMarie, Gurnt, VPofKarma, Coneria, joegoldstein, wilywascal, bull8807, Shawke, IsaacKuo, praesepe, Prickly Pam

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site