Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton - by Matt Taibbi

We shouldn't dismiss the young folks, they see so much more than we ever did. They see more than we do even now. And they will carry the heaviest burden for our mistakes, they already are and if Bernie loses, we will have made it so. much. worse.

It would have been nice if the "young people" gave enough of a shit about 2010 and 2014 to show up and vote, but baby steps...

College kids were big on Ron Paul in '08 until he dropped out -- Were they "right" about him?

I do like the irony given that the "young people" are what helped put Bill Clinton over the top in '92...

The reasons they liked Ron Paul were legitimate, but he was still the wrong person for actual solutions. He was a very impractical choice. Ultimately, young people went overwhelmingly for Obama anyway - and they were right.

It's not uncommon to like a bad candidate for the right (but incorrect) reasons. For example, the reasons Trump supporters like Trump are legitimate, but he's still a terrible choice for POTUS.

Incidentally, women that want Clinton simply because she's a woman are wrong about her, but they'd be correct about Elizabeth Warren.

In 2010 and especially 2014, the Democratic Party ran terrible candidates. Young people show up when there's someone to vote for, they don't show up to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's my generation's (Gen X) downfall, we still ended up with two terms of Bush anyway. It's just not a good way to do things and here we are trying to dig in on the same strategy using yet another scary-man republican of the moment.

Thoughts on why '04 turned out the way it did (from someone who detested Bush and voted Kerry):

1. Incumbents have a built-in advantage. Name recognition is a powerful thing (See: Clinton, Hillary - 2016)
2. Dirty politics. That whole Swiftboat Veterens for Truth became synonymous with dirty political attacks. When someone defines a candidate before they get a chance to define themselves that can be very powerful. Kerry was known to low-info voters as a guy who ditched his military comrades or some such. They also painted him, fairly or not, as a bit of a flip-flopper. His flip-flopping pails in comparison to Clinton's.
3. In times of war people and chaos people are more likely to stick with the devil they know over the devil they don't. A lot of people plain don't like politics, politicians, and couldn't care less. That's probably why you're seeing Trump get so many supporters right now. People are just tired of seeing the system at work, even if Trump is a pompous ass.

I think young people just want someone they can trust, and the political system keeps telling them to go fuck themselves. That's why Sanders was so refreshing and why Clinton is such a finger to the eye. They don't see her as trustworthy. It's not like Trump holds some moral high ground there, but we should strive to be a party with higher standards.

The two most likely candidates left are not good and America is feeling more and more like some sort of dystopian society where the poor stay poor, and the best way to have a decent shot at making something of yourself you need to be born into wealth.

The system is broken. I want a candidate that will at least attempt to fix it.

Most of my class supports the candidate they trust; not one supports Clinton.

Student loan debts.

adjusted for 1992 dollars, of course...

Growing up for most of their lives hearing about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and all the gawd damned saber rattling against Iran, maybe, just maybe, they are not all that hip-hop happy with the eternal, never-ending wars that our gawd damned country is inextricably involved with like a Gordian knot!

On top of that, blaming college-aged kids for the results of the 2010 and 2014 elections falls on their deaf ears.
Most of them were not even able at that age to even understand why the mainstream media was totally ambivalent towards President Obama since 2008.

How the hell are they supposed to filter through all of that political, rhetorical dog shit about how all they want is free stuff, when they can't even get a decent job to pay for gas for their car, if they even have one?

snap his fingers and magically withdraw U.S. efforts from every single conflict, right?

That's one of Bernie's issues, really. In effect, the kids aren't going to do it unless you keep them engaged. Obama didn't do much to inspire the people who voted for him to come out in the off-year elections. Bernie is about building a movement that does't disappear on the Wednesday after election day. To get more of his agenda through, Bernie needs progressively (pardon the pun) better congresses.

and lest you forget, he did a shitload of stumping for the close races...

Maybe I've been doing this wrong all this time --I've been voting all my life in almost every local-state-national race, regardless of whether or not I was "inspired"...

...there could be benefits to doing so, especially if one has an aggressive agenda.

he put in for downticket candidates meant nothing?

If you say so....

I didn't say his downticket campaigning in select races meant nothing.

That's not the same as trying to keep young people engaged nationwide.

Different strategies. One can do one, the other, or both.

My guess is that they see candidates who have the backing of big, consumption driven corporations as part of the problem, not the solution.

Is the big thing. I teach college-level and this is what I hear.

Cher

I can remember topics about environmental disasters. We studied a tanker that had dumped an enormous amount of oil into the sea, and how it affected the surrounding wildlife. We have been told from the start by teachers, parents - almost every adult - that the environment is being destroyed, and that it falls to us to save it. For most of us, it has become a large political issue.

We just try to exist as humans always have with our daily cares and concerns. I think young people do get the fact that the structure necessary for us to have our cares and concerns is in danger. For older people this is a newer fear, we weren't thinking about it at all when we were young. Wall Street/Capitalism is like Disneyland-just go out, spend money and have a good time. There is an awareness that something is wrong with this model-we can't continue down this path-what do we do?

There are plenty of not young people supporting him for the same reasons!

"Those Damned Hippies Were Right" comes to mind. I am an old hippie now but I believe in the ideals of the young.

...and the Clinton brand as a whole...I just hope that the voters are smart enough to pick the right nominee, and leave Hillary to collect her millions on the lecture circuit...

She'll react with platitudes and evasions when public outcry becomes too deafening, but she'll continue appointing Iraq war architects like Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland and continually pushing for regime change in Libya and Syria and general destabilization. And who remembers the Clinton whitehouse was the original pusher of Bush's WMD lies and call for regime change? She was not new to the subject 5 years later when the IWR vote came up.



(And yes, she did run on her husband's record in 2008 and let Bill advertise them as a team.)

She has /consistently/ dealed for FTAs, and even lied about her support for NAFTA. So she is a class warrior in the economic sense, too.

Taibbi is being rather facile about her record.

A few days ago, when Rolling Stone endorsed Clinton, dozens of Sanders supporters swore they would never again read this "tool of the establishment."

In fear of something worse. Change takes courage.

That's when I dropped them like a rock.

Every right wing crank in the country urged a boycott over that.

See, unlike the Clintonites we don't all march in lockstep or engage in group think.

It said dozens posted about it, clearly didn't say there were only dozens. But your point was not about accuracy anyway.

I would think if there is a reading comprehension fail it would be on your part. The post was titled


Guess no Sanders supporters read this


As in no, as in none, because after all dozens said they would boycott Rolling Stone.

Got it? Good.

Can't imagine why you get so many posts hidden when you're so pleasant.

so who said this?

Forget it; I don't argue with people who don't care to start with the facts.

ok

better than older folks who are often heavily polluted and brain washed by years of media and political BS and propaganda.

time before my grand kids did. And, I still subscribe to Rolling Stone!

I don't think he'll be there for much longer.

but he's been there for a long time.

He was going to head a satirical digital magazine called The Racket


The Inside Story of Matt Taibbi's Departure from First Look Media

and continues to be frankly, given the nature of how the campaign is raising it's millions via SuperPACS

lead by example

... Matt Taibbi sells to young people.

... us how spending 2000 hours per year on Call of Duty was totally worth it; they led on Beiber and the Kardashians, and just a few short years ago they brought us The Suite Life of Zach and Cody.

good luck with dismissing the youth...because they will be you someday...

and they might possibly see things a little differently than you...and not give one shit about what happens to you...

... little zealot in my youth. It's actually pretty funny.

But we're supposed to vote for her because she's experienced.

big crowds didn't help McGovern in 72 and they aren't helping BS right now.

but don't want to point out any problems relating to the Democratic Party and the country as results of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010 ,2012 and 2014....

Third Way/DLC/DNC...all good...for somebody

And naturally, that wound is going to be exploited, but those who hark back to 1972 may not necessarily be malicious, just very scarred. Or scared, as may be.

In any event, the '72 debacle has been a spectre haunting the Dems ever since, and in order to try to avert further such disasters, it has been moving to the Right ever since.

-- Mal

Tweeted

college. Now I do not talk about college anymore. In the Government class, they learn about why 18 year old persons got the Vote, during the Vietnam War. Graduating students are actually upset about the fact they they are facing minimum wage pay when joining the workforce and that college loans will prevent them from owning a home or attaining the American Dream that their parents have now. Most parents cannot qualify for an education loan. Students worry about a Draft and who is going to pay for foreign wars of the near future. Female students are worried that since Bush approved of women in combat, that they could be set up for a future Draft.

Students talk about their worries and text them on social media. They will to tell you about their future outlook. It makes me sad to think about Hillary Clinton continuing to do in the Middle East what she did in Libya. It makes me cry to think about the deaths of my students from ME Wars. Students will tell you that right now, their hope lies with Sanders. High school Seniors are 17 and 18 years old; mostly 18 by May. They register for the Draft near the end of the Spring semester of their Senior year.

is not obvious nearly all of the rest of the Democratic Party.

And I posted about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511575950


..

Thomas Frank disagrees about the nature of the McGovern campaign. They were not like Bernie, in his argument, McGovern is the beginning of the DLC/Third Way movement. Although you may feel to reject this notion out-of-hand his argument makes sense. Nixon was pulling away the working class, the hard hats, so the McGovern commission planned a new constituency, credentialed pros--of who the war protestors would become.



He talks about 1972 starting around 19:20.

It is worth reflection.

from the same article cited in the OP

"Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore. They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution" that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them."

Thanks Matt. Well spoken.

but I hope it's before the voters get their faces kicked in by the elites in another financial crash similar to the Great Depression.

they can be quite radical and move lickety-split when servicing the 1%.

Thanks for bringing it over.

Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-young-people-are-right-about-hillary-clinton-20160325#ixzz44IuahkUg
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

And, this:



It seems that Hi11ary has come to exemplify "an inexorable pattern of corruption" for the vast majority of our younglings, many of whom view as anathema the racism of their forebears.