Alternet reporter: Clinton campaign a mess

[Fawke Em]

Yep... that isn't how it works. I used to be a reporter. I can vouch for his comments.

[Eriteo]

1. Zaid Jilani is a Sanders' fan

Half her stories are praise for Sanders. http://www.salon.com/writer/zaid_jilani/

[morningfog]

2. A lot of new Hillary folk at DU all of the sudden.

Welcome. I look forward to hearing the talking points.

[MADem]

8. Good--they'll counteract all the Sanders newbies that have turned up in the past month or so.

Anyone who has been here for a while can then go on holiday and let these surrogates fight it out amongst themselves...

[MADem]

7. Is this person supposed to be a reporter or something?

A half-way "adult" avatar on twitter would go a ways towards establishing something resembling bona fides.

I would take advice from that person on which cartoons to show the kids at the weekend, perhaps, but not much more.

[artislife]

10. Oh--the millenials have passed the boomers in numbers

they may not be grown up enough to pass the Me generation bona fides but they still can sway voters and do some damage. Ignore them at your own peril.

[MADem]

23. I don't think that twittering person presents in a way to be taken at all seriously.

As for millenials, they don't vote, they don't register to vote, they are all 'above' politics, they distrust "the man" and established institutions. They have good natures and care about their fellow humans but they aren't making the connection. They're still in contrarian mode.

Give 'em another decade to mature and I'll agree with you.

Not yet, though.

Howard Dean ignored this truth about young people (to HIS peril--his orange hatted cheerleaders just did not show up for him...Gene McCarthy and George McGovern learned it too, years earlier).

Some American youth are issue-oriented but they haven't made the connection between the ballot box and their own quality of life.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/08/20/millennials-don-believe-voting/cGb7sx5ZvkmDCsNd3shTDO/story.html

[Luminous Animal]

26. Anyone under the age of 30 would recognize the great movie that avatar comes from.

[MADem]

29. Yes--and that's the crew that does not VOTE. nt

[Luminous Animal]

33. They came out for Obama, they will come out for Sanders. I predict a better youth turnout

for Sanders than Obama.

[MADem]

36. No, they didn't.

The overwhelming majority of them just stayed home.

[Luminous Animal]

38. You are the cutest MADem on this board.

Lippy the Lion and Hardy Har Har is my favorite cartoon from my youth. Likely you remember it because we are not so far apart in age.

[MADem]

45. I wasn't raised in USA so I miss many cultural references.

I was not living in USA and did not own a television when this cartoon made its first appearance.

Lippy the Lion (voiced by Daws Butler) and Hardy Har Har the Hyena (voiced by Mel Blanc) first appeared in The Hanna-Barbera New Cartoon Series in 1962, along with Wally Gator and Touché Turtle and Dum Dum. Mel Blanc used the same voice, personality and expressions for Hardy Har-Har that he used playing the postman on the Burns and Allen radio show.
Their cartoons revolved around ever-hopeful Lippy's attempts to get rich quick, with reluctant Hardy serving as a foil. Whatever the consequences were to Lippy's schemes, Hardy would end up getting the worst of it — a fact he always seemed to realize ahead of time, with his moans of, "Oh me, oh my, oh dear." Although the intro shows them in a jungle setting proper for such beasts, most of the cartoons' stories took place in an urban setting.
Since then, the duo have been infrequently included in the cast of Hanna-Barbera's ensemble shows (e.g., Yogi's Gang). They were no longer constantly pursuing Lippy's get-rich-quick schemes, but their personalities were unchanged; Lippy was still the smiling optimist, Hardy the moaning pessimist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippy_the_Lion_%26_Hardy_Har_Har

That said, I think I saw them in reruns on UHF channels years ago, but I never latched on to their schtick.


If you are trying to suggest with your belittling characterization that I'm 'bemoaning,' I am not. Since the mid-sixties, young people have not voted--even when they inserted themselves into the political process in other ways. I've provided data in this thread to back up this assertion.

[Luminous Animal]

49. You are certainly bemoaning. You are flat out stating that nothing can change. That makes you

part of the problem.

[MADem]

51. OK. So, to you, providing hard data is "bemoaning."

A presidential campaign that made any contention in this little primary contest look like a bridge game or a flower arranging class gave us Richard Nixon.

I don't think you could see more engagement than during that campaign.

Young people do not vote.

And saying so isn't "bemoaning."

[Luminous Animal]

56. Hard data showed that an African American man could not be elected President.

Hard data showed that the citizens of the U.S. would not accept marriage equality.

Hard data showed that 80% of the U.S. supported Bush after 9/11.

[MADem]

88. But it didn't show that at all--it showed the very opposite, in fact.

Why would you invent such a thing? All the polls, pretty much, save the ones using Gallup input, had Obama in front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008


The ultimate hard data was counted right after the polls closed, but most people I knew had a good feeling about that election well before the vote was cast.

FWIW, marriage equality was put to the same "vote" that decided Bush v. Gore. Had it been put to a national vote, it might have been a tougher sell. The polls are around sixty percent nowadays, but a referendum always brings out the gamers.

That said, I'm glad those idiots on the Supremes voted the right way, this time.

In time of war or attack or great national tragedy, the nation does unite. This is natural. Most nations do this--even if they don't especially like the leader.

Bush squandered all that goodwill, which points to just how stupid he in fact was.

[valerief]

66. How come census.gov says 18-24 was 24% in 2008 and 47% in 2004 and your graph says zip?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html

Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004.

also

Although the youngest voters were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, voting did tend to increase with age. In 2008, younger citizens (18-24) had the lowest voting rate (49 percent), while citizens who fell into older age groups (45-64 and 65-plus) had the highest voting rates (69 percent and 70 percent, respectively).

[MADem]

86. 24% would be one in four. None of these numbers are adding up. Including mine.

This might be a small part of it, but I can't really say:

The actual vote count was roughly four million votes smaller than the Census calculation of the number of votes cast.

The trend is downward, the white vote is shrinking, and the Hispanic and black votes are likely to be the deciders in the coming election. As for the youth vote, they are comprising a smaller and smaller percentage of the total voting population:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/the-disappearing-white-vote-and-3-other-observations-from-the-2012-election-census-report/

Exit polling showed voters aged 18-29 made up 19 percent of the electorate in 2012 after comprising 18 percent of it in 2008. That's still well below where the youth vote stood in the 1980s when it made up 20 percent or more of the overall electorate. (Surprisingly, the Census Bureau survey found voters aged 18-29 making up just 15 percent of the 2012 electorate.)

This graph is even uglier than the first (numerical as opposed to percentage) figures I found:




Even Sanders--though some of his facts were off--has spoken on this issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/02/bernie-s/checking-bernie-sanders-americans-low-voter-turnou/

The youth vote as a percentage of the total electorate is shrinking. Not sure why, it shouldn't be -- but that is what is happening.

[hifiguy]

136. Maybe they didn't think there was anyone worth voting for?

Why vote for Republican-lite "Democrats?"

[sabrina 1]

91. How wrong you are. THAT is who is driving Bernie's campaign, YOUNG people

who felt unrepresented by those in power, until now. They did the same for Obama and without them he would have lost, then became disillusioned. But Bernie's long record has restored hope that this is not the usual politician saying what they think they need to say in order to get elected.

It is the enthusiasm of the young who know a whole lot more about the way things are in this country right now, than many older Americans, they know their future has been squandered and are stepping up now that they have a candidate to represent them, to take control of it, because those in power haven't done much for them, have they? Saddled with obscene debt if they want an education well into the future, few jobs and little to look forward to.

I am so amazed by all those brilliant young people who are so informed, so determined and so enthusiastic about someone who actually understands what has gone wrong something THEY know, but don't hear from other politicians.

It's an exciting time, things are changing, the young know they have to do it because those who have been in charge won't.

[haikugal]

114. I see it too Sabrina 1

even my son is starting to feel the Bern which is new for him. He and his friends have been so turned off by politics and politicians. I don't blame them and I'm thrilled to see the young getting excited and involved with Bernie and the revolution he's building. It brings hope for real change rather than lip service.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Yeah, you've managed to hit on several elements of exactly what is wrong with HRC's campaign

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 03:53 AM - Edit history (2)

so far.

The condescension combined with the -frankly dangerous- out of touch cluelessness. And more than a smidge of deep denial in the mix.

If this was your grandparents' beltway conventional wisdom election cycle, she and Jebber would have it wrapped up already.

[MADem]

93. This is why DU is a lousy place to have a conversation, and thanks so much for being SO obvious

about it so I can use your post as an example.

I'm having a conversation about voters, young voters, specifically, and you are talking about me, my supposed "condesecencion," 'dangerousness' and "cluelessness" and "deep denial" ... and my grandparents. Not sure what you were hoping to accomplish there, beyond a series of insignificant put-downs. You certainly haven't convinced me of any argument with that approach.

I am not making this discussion personal, but I've been called names more than once in this thread. I won't respond in kind, "dude," but I will point out that you're one of the ones doing it.

Warren DeMontague
72. Yeah, you've managed to hit on several elements of exactly what is wrong with HRC's campaign
View profile
so far.

The condescencion combined with the -frankly dangerous- out of touch cluelessness. And more than a smidge of deep denial in the mix.

Dude, If this was your grandparents' beltway conventional wisdom election cycle, she and Jebber would have it wrapped up already.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. That's not name calling. Nor is it personal.

I call my friends "dude". "Not your grandparents'..." Etc is an expression, or a variation on one. Nothing in my post is intended as a put down, unless pointing out the following is a put down- namely, Yes, you're being condescending to Millennials.

And unfortunately it's an attitude which comes through loud and clear from HRC's campaign. These are people we need to motivate, not talk down to. It is out of touch and clueless to ignore them or pretend they dont matter, when they will be the key to winning next november.

[MADem]

117. OK, "dude."

You are saying that if I call you a dangerous, clueless condescender, that's nothing but a thing?


Mmm hmm. Yeah, right.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. I'd be able to distinguish you saying that about a particular argument of mine from you saying it

about me, yes, I would.

Your attitude towards millennials, here up and down this thread, parallels that of the HRC campaign to date, and yeah- it's all those things. Old saws about how "they don't vote" and the like. How is that even remotely the way to win an election? That's the question, here, to my mind.

Doesn't mean YOU are all those things. There's a difference.

But, you're gonna take it how you take it.

Edited: Since you find "dude" offensive I've taken it out of the post. It really wasn't intended as anything more than a conversational affectation, not intended to be nasty. My criticism was directed at your comments in the thread and the attitude toward millennial voters displayed therein, not to you personally, if that distinction makes a difference.

[MADem]

141. Just because I talk about a few facts doesn't mean I "dislike"

anyone. You're the one trying to lay that garbage on me. It's kind of a skeevy thing to do, frankly.

It is not disparaging to say that young people (from 1968 on, certainly) do not vote. They haven't for the last fifty years. As they age, they tend to get more interested in the electoral process, but they don't relate change to voting, especially in congressional off years.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. is it any more skeevy than attributing stuff to me that I didn't say, like the word 'dislike'?

I said your attitude in the thread is coming off as condescending to Millennials. That's my subjective interpretation.

And the noise about how "they don't vote" is overblown. When they DO vote- 2008, for instance- it makes a big difference. But either way, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This sums up my point better than I ever could.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253807-sanders-surges-past-hillary-among-college-students

[tomm2thumbs]

120. results

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nasty unprovoked personal attack. Name calling adds nothing to the conversation and makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 16, 2015, 12:30 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see NOTHING of what is claimed in the alert -- name calling? Personal attack? The post is criticizing comments, not the person, and frankly I had to re-read the original post to see if there was even the tiniest, slightest inkling of anything inappropriate. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter: where is the "namecalling"? I see observations on another's post, not name calling. Nonsense alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

___

on update - someone posted, but will leave - sorry about he double post - a minute apart

[Warren DeMontague]

122. I must have made someone's list, now that I've officially come out for Sanders.

Oh, well.

7-0, tough break.

[tomm2thumbs]

124. welp

Somebody just lost their alert ability for 24 hours.

[MADem]

131. That was not my alert, FWIW--I prefer to leave comments like that standing.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. I didnt think that was your alert, FWIW.

But really, for someone who has been here as long as you... Please, with the overblown drama. You know , as 7 jurors knew, that wasn't even remotely a personal attack. Calling your attitude toward millennials in this thread condescending- and similar to the seemingly clueless approach of the Clinton campaign to that demographic- is not the same thing.

You criticize -mischaracterize, to my mind- MY post in this thread, but I dont feel like you're attacking me, personally.

[MADem]

146. Again--I didn't alert, so not sure why you're lecturing me about the results.

I am not attacking you AT ALL.

I deal in facts and I avoid getting personal. I don't call people names, I don't suggest that their emotions (e.g. "overblown drama&quot are in flux, any of that shit.

When I see that kind of thing tossed at me, it's a signal that my conversation partner is out of steam.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I don't call people names, either.

"dude" is not name-calling.

[MADem]

148. Of course it's not--it's just dismissive.

The name calling and characterizations came in when you went into "condesecencion," 'dangerousness' and "cluelessness" and "deep denial" territory. But do keep waving the "dude" flag to distract from all that.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. And again, those were characterizations of your attitude in the thread, not you.

And specifically their similarity- to a detrimental degree- to the attitude the Clinton campaign seems to have towards the same demographic.

I stand by them, in that context. Nor am I going to keep explaining that point over and over again.

Because like I said, I can't control how you choose to take things, can I.

[MADem]

150. Mmm hmmm. When you have to talk about me instead of the subject matter, that's your failing, not

mine.

It's not about how I "choose to take things," it's the tactics you use to "win" a discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. Here's the salient point: Hillary's campaign sure seems to be writing off Millennials.

Saying "well who cares they don't vote" or focusing on whether "the twittering person presents in a way to be taken seriously" is not a winning strategy.

I suppose if I point out that neither you nor I are exactly of an age where we can legitimately imagine ourselves cultural gatekeepers to the extent of determining who or what the younger generation will 'take seriously', you will turn that into another imagined personal attack and spin off into a full subthread of indignation.

If you want to do that, fine, but I'm done here. Peace.

[MADem]

153. No, the salient point was when you started talking about me instead of the topic.

"I" am not claiming to be a "cultural gatekeeper."

I do know--and history has proven me out over fifty or so years--that a person's relationship with the ballot box improves with age.

[neverforget]

119. the jury is in

On Wed Sep 16, 2015, 12:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, you've managed to hit on several elements of exactly what is wrong with HRC's campaign
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=597598

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nasty unprovoked personal attack. Name calling adds nothing to the conversation and makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 16, 2015, 12:30 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see NOTHING of what is claimed in the alert -- name calling? Personal attack? The post is criticizing comments, not the person, and frankly I had to re-read the original post to see if there was even the tiniest, slightest inkling of anything inappropriate. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter: where is the "namecalling"? I see observations on another's post, not name calling. Nonsense alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Damn.

"name calling"???

[Laser102]

82. You are one hundred percent right. Always find myself agreeing with you.

[senz]

83. That chart adds one more piece to my thesis

that everything started going to hell with Reagan. Reaganomics, trickle-down, demeaned the average American, and not only did it play out over 35 years in the economy, it showed in voter turnout, too. People lost heart.

[SheilaT]

84. My two Millennial children vote.

So do their cousins, also Millennial. I do realize that I'm only offering an anecdote here, but I think that to dismiss the younger voters is to make a mistake.

Of course, I'm in the 30 and over. Well, I'm 67 so I'm in the very old category.

[MADem]

87. I don't dismiss any voter--I'd like to see every eligible voter exercise their franchise.

That way, at least we'd know what people REALLY want....!

[Fred Sanders]

14. The avatar is not the avatar of a serious reporter....more like a blogger....who tweets "reports"!

[Fawke Em]

46. When in doubt, attack the messenger.

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[MADem]

55. It's messenger, not "messanger"--but people who want to be treated like professionals would do

well to act the part.

And it's not an "attack" to note when someone is less than professional in their demeanor--people do it here re: Sarah Palin and others routinely.

It's how the world works.

[Fawke Em]

90. A personal Twitter account picture isn't something I worry too much about.

I care about what the person is linking to and discussing.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Oh those kids.

[MADem]

25. Who don't vote. nt

[morningfog]

27. Maybe you forgot 2008.

Get off my lawn er out of my voting booth!

[MADem]

30. .......

What fiction have you been reading that lead you to believe that "youth" brought POTUS over the line?

[6chars]

67. that chart is misleading - only data for off-year elections

Each line in the chart goes from a data point in one off year election (like 2002) directly to the data point for the next off year election (2006).
Presidential elections, youth vote is around 40-50% vs 65-70% for older

http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/

[dorkzilla]

78. she's been corrected twice now, the graph will stay regardless

Don't harsh her mellow dude, young people are like all lazy and they don't vote, man. So let's just stop pretending that the Socialist could win.

Is that so difficult?

[MADem]

94. How very rude.

I don't think young people are lazy. I do think they don't vote in force, and their influence on elections is shrinking every election cycle.

[dorkzilla]

102. I also think it's rude to keep pushing incorrect information

Your oft repeated graph is missing some pretty vital information, and it's been pointed out to you at least twice now.

But then again I'm just so rude for pointing that out so what do I know?

[MADem]

104. You might follow the whole conversation instead of leaping in to play "gotcha."

You don't want a conversation, though--you want to snark and wave.

Fine with me.

[dorkzilla]

107. play gotcha? Lol!

Oooookay, that was a conversation opener if ever there was one!

Have a pleasant night!

[bvf]

100. Have to resort to midterm data to make your point?

I think this is what you're looking for.

(Oh, and since you seem to be into calling out typos, it's millennial, not millenial).



Glad to help. You're welcome.

[MADem]

101. Your trend is still falling, and the percentage of the total young voting population is as well.

As is the overall percentage of white voters.

Thank you for the correction--that's what I get for not spell checking!

[bvf]

108. The lowest turnout percentages

in this much more representative graph are roughly twice as high as those in the one you posted over and over.

[MADem]

110. If you'd followed the conversation you'd see I acknowledged that twenty plus posts ago.

However, the percentage of young voters as a subset of the total voting population is on a downward slope and that is not changing. White voters, too, are shrinking as a percentage of the total as well.

[bvf]

116. Was that after your first, second, or third

offering of the same misleading, unrepresentative data?

The point is you cannot infer much about the upcoming cycle given the historical variance from one to the next.

You sound like you would like nothing more than to be right (how else to explain your argument from meaningless numbers?) and for young voter participation to decline.

I wouldn't bet on it.

[MADem]

118. You aren't following the arc of the conversation, if you were, you'd know.

"The point" is that you're uninterested in actual discussion...and it's obvious.

[jeff47]

31. Well, we've been giving them nothing but centrist boomers

We've given millennials (and GenX) a choice between people who shit on them, and people who shit on them with an occasional apology.

Yeah, that's gonna drive turnout.

[MADem]

35. Go back further. Gene McCarthy was a centrist boomer? George McGovern?

This is a matter that transcends generations.


Young people don't vote.

They don't make the connection between their personal civic responsibility and changing the policies of a government.

I truly don't think they've made that connection since the voting age was lowered to eighteen.

Perhaps if the voting age -- and the minimum age for enlistment in the military -- were raised to 21, we'd see more participation. I dunno.

All I know is this--young people--even when they appear to be engaged in the process--don't vote.

[jeff47]

62. Because those politicians are highly relevant to millennials.

Also, those "young people" you're shitting on? GenX is in their 40s now. Older millennials are in their 30s.

[MADem]

96. You are apparently not taking my point that this is an aspect that transcends

generations--the idealism doesn't translate into larger turnouts.

Put a decade on the "youth vote" and the turnout increases. Put a half century on it, and they're out in force.

I am not "shitting on" anyone, but thanks for the unfair characterization.

[jeff47]

128. The people you are talking about are not 18.

I really don't understand why simple math is troubling you. People who turned 18 in 2000 are millennials. They are 33 now. You are continuing to insist they are 18-25.

I am not "shitting on" anyone, but thanks for the unfair characterization.

Because insisting that 30 and 40 year olds are don't-give-a-damn teens is a positive statement?

[MADem]

130. Look, for the umpteenth time, I am saying that

"young people" -- and you can pick your 'end age' -- 24, or 29, but generally less than thirty -- do not vote. This is true for Gen X, for Gen Y, for Millenials, for Boomers back in the day, and for whatever they're going to call future groups.

Young people are idealistic but they often prefer direct action and don't see the sustained benefit of building a political coalition that will respond to their interests. They're worse at this in the off-years, too. Also, their percentage as a portion of the total voting population is declining, not increasing, so they are LOSING influence, not gaining it. The sleeping giants are Hispanics. This isn't "news" or even slightly controversial---only on DU do people fight about this shit.

[jeff47]

132. You saying it for the umpteenth time does not magically make them 10 years younger.

"young people" -- and you can pick your 'end age' -- 24, or 29, but generally less than thirty -- do not vote.

How old are millennials?

Because you keep calling them "young people". They aren't.

Also, their percentage as a portion of the total voting population is declining, not increasing

That was true when "young people" were GenX. That isn't the case anymore either.

[MADem]

133. Keep missing the point, it's obvious that the demographic of which I speak

is the under-30 set. Every ten years, they change the name of this group.

Sorry you just can't seem to process that, but that's not my problem, it's yours.

[jeff47]

137. I'm not missing the point. You are wrong about their age.

it's obvious that the demographic of which I speak is the under-30 set

Which is at most the tail end of millennials. The vast majority of millennials are over 30.

So no, millennials are not in the group of young voters who do not historically participate, despite you claiming that over and over and over and over and over again.

Which means your point, that millennials won't vote because they're under 30, is not actually true. Since they are not under 30.

[MADem]

138. They were when they weren't voting.

And you are missing the point.

Keep writing ten paragraphs to tell me so, doesn't bother me a whit. It's rather tellling that you keep on like this.

[jeff47]

139. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to fall back on?

Hey, let's talk about their shitty turnout in the 1980 election. Sure, they weren't born yet, but that just shows how uninvolved in politics they are.

The entirety of your point rests on millennials currently being under 30. That is no longer true. Just like boomers were once under 30 and no longer are under 30.

[MADem]

140. I am not 'falling back' on anything. You're having trouble following along.

"Currently" is your word.

My point is that young people don't vote. You can call them whatever at any point on the timeline over the last fifty years, but young people do not vote. The older people get, the more likely they are to be involved in the electoral process.

But do go on with your ire. It's obviously important to you.

[jeff47]

142. :facepalm:

My point is that young people don't vote.

Which you illustrated by showing people under 30 don't vote. And over and over again you said millennials won't vote because they're those young, under 30 people.

Now, you're trying to say they won't vote because they were under 30 at one point.

But do go on with your ire. It's obviously important to you.

And apparently the most important thing to you is to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever admit to making a mistake.

Millennials were under 30 in 2008. So your "analysis" would be relevant to that election. But time moves on.

[MADem]

143. Keep digging the hole.

You're just ignoring the context of my comments, because you need a fight for some odd reason.

You keep yammering on about millenials like they are significant. When they were under thirty, they were germane to the discussion. When the boomers were under thirty, they were germane.

Starting to take the point yet? Or are you still having trouble?

[Luminous Animal]

32. Have you seen the crowds of youth at Bernie events? Obama captured the youth vote, perhaps

Bernie will too.

I'm involved with People for Bernie in San Francisco and Oakland, the vast majority of volunteers are under the age of 30. Reddit is on fire with Bernie supporters.

[MADem]

37. Numbers don't lie. Young people don't vote.

They go to rallies, they argue on the internet, they buy swag, they stay Clean For Gene, they even wear orange hats...

But they don't vote. If you can get one of five to bother to wait in line at a polling booth, you're doing good.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Help! I'm falling into your negativism…. Oh wait there's kitties heads to skritch. Skritch! Skritch!

Ah, back into fighting the good fight and lifting people up.

Rise up! Rise up!

[MADem]

47. It's not negativism. It's pragmatism. No candidate should count on "the youth vote."

Not even the Liberty University College Republicans can be counted to turn out for the favorite Faith Based hero.

Their volume is in inverse proportion to the presence at the voting booth on the day.

It's fine to address their issues because they will one day join the fold, but spend too much time pandering to them, and you lose.

Ask Howard Dean.

[6chars]

68. Those numbers lie. Young people vote

in presidential elections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=597550

[daleanime]

54. You hope...

and isn't that kind of sad?

[MADem]

61. Statistics are statistics. Fight the trend all you want--just don't count on it.

Because if you do count on it (and if you count on every youth voter casting votes for your candidate, as well), you'll be the sad one.

A terrifying number of young voters are selfish, and lean right, not left. That "Stand with Rand" crap isn't a chimera, especially among white male youth.

[daleanime]

63. Come on....

be honest with yourself if no one else, you're hoping that young voters stay away. Hey, you want to win, I understand that. I may not agree with the way you seem willing to do it, but that's just me.

Well, whatever. Have a lovely evening.

[MADem]

111. The Paulbots and Trump-eters? Maybe.

I'd like to see everyone vote, actually. Even the morons.

People talk a good fight about what they claim to want, it would be interesting to see what would happen if half of this bigmouth nation, that doesn't vote, had to live for four years with what they chose.

Maybe it would make people more interested in the issues as opposed to the horserace.

[daleanime]

126. That would be nice....

and that's at least half the fight we have in front of us. The education issue in america isn't just our children.

[artislife]

34. Yeah.

Read the two responses I got from the two self identified boomers. Only their generation was hip enough to change the world when they were in their early twenties. Wearing tie dyed shirt, smoking weed and listening to Bob Dylan.

They now scoff at weed, baggie pants and Rap that has a social message---they have become their parents.

[MADem]

39. No--they didn't show up either....but really nice "ageist" comment, there.

That "get off my lawn" guy is running for the nomination for the Democratic Party, too, ya know.

Those tie dyed weed smokers listening to "Bob Dylan" showed up at only slightly better (but not enough to count) ratios than the youth of today.

Ask the ghosts of McGovern and McCarthy how that worked out for 'em.

[artislife]

57. Just because one generation was useless

a going to the polls, don't expect all of them to be.

Sure we have our insipid members, but we also have members who know this planet is on fire, the waters are radioactive or oil drenched and that the food is poison. The see any riches circling the economy not stopping in their bank accounts. They have high debt if they went to any kind of college, they have little chance of earning 12 dollars an hour no matter how well educated they are.

There isn't just a war. There isn't just a Nixon in office.

There is multiple wars, immigrants rushing borders by the thousands a day escaping war and climate destruction. There is a a thriving middle class in someone else's country and there are more and more auto immune diseases, cancers, and other mutations from decades of neglect of this planet. There is a company that sues nations that don't use it's modified killer seeds.

Yeah, we have an old guy. He is the one that didn't lose the fight for the people. He was and is, a man who cares for everyone.

Too bad that isn't necessarily a generational trait.

[MADem]

71. More than one generation, though. The grandchildren carry on the tradition.

The downward glide slope has been continuous since the sixties.

Grandparents, parents, and now the children--they just don't vote when they're young.

Look, if you don't think that a DRAFT that would send a person to fight and die in VIETNAM against their will wasn't going to get a kid to the polls, why do you think that the issues of today are somehow more compelling? Your argument fails.

Multiple wars? Those are for the "all volunteer force," not the well fed activists attending rallies.

You'd be surprised at how many young people couldn't find Iran on a map. And Syria? Fuggedaboutit. Hell, here on this "informed" board, we have posters who are under the deep misapprehension that Persians are Arabs and they speak Arabic in Iran.

No one is being drafted in America, and no one will be drafted unless we get attacked by China--no one has to get "C" grades or better to keep their 2S status. And no "war escaping immigrants" are "rushing" the US borders, T-Rump's gripes about "those Mexicans" notwithstanding. We've got two massive borders called The Atlantic and The Pacific that slow that roll.

Previous generations didn't have the 24/7 distraction of the internet, premium cable, video games, smartphones, and other attention grabbers. The national anthem played on TV at midnight--maybe one in the morning in big cities, and you had the radio and/or a book for entertainment. Information didn't move as fast, but it was discussed--in real life--to death.

Even that didn't get those young voters to the polls. And don't make the mistake of equating "young" with "liberal." A nutty place like Liberty University would have been a very tough sell during the Vietnam era--but look at how many fools spend their tuition money at a shit school that lacks academic rigor, and do so proudly.

It ain't all old people at those T-Rump rallies, either...look at all the "youth voters" turning out for The Donald, never mind the "Stand With Rand" bunch.

[artislife]

74. We see the young differently

Xers, we didn't do much, but the young people I see getting involved are coming into this world wise.

But we see what we see..

[MADem]

89. I am not an Xer.

I don't think the youth are "bad," they just don't understand why their votes matter.

They are less connected to the "All politics is local" reality. They are idealistic, and not yet pragmatic. This is not unique to this generation by any stretch. Young people have different priorities, as they should.

I think most kids nowadays are a lot nicer than they were back in the old days. Of course, they aren't worried about getting drafted and shipped off to Southeast Asia, either.

[artislife]

95. No, they are the ones finding frogs with mutations.

That one out of 125 is being born on the autism scale, they have more asthma than previous generations, auto immune diseases...

They work at assisted living communities and know when they retire there is no way in hell they will be housed as nicely and for so long.

Who is showing up for Trump, Bernie and the Pauls? The young, along with the rest of the population.
The line I stood in for Bernie in Seattle the immediate surrounding people were about half and half in young v old and male v female and about 30% minority. In the 6 or 8 people that were flanking me.

[MADem]

99. They are the ones with helicopter parents who were afraid to give them peanut butter, which

might have exacerbated their allergic response. They were picked and scalded, not allowed to play in the dirt (which can reduce instances of that asthma you mentioned) , their houses were dusted to within an inch of their lives, their hands were sanitized at every turn, and they weren't given an opportunity to "exercise" their immune systems, never mind get any "free range" exercise outside of their fenced yards and scheduled "play dates."

They do live in a more difficult world, but a lot of the overprotective parenting didn't help.

IMO, anyway.

Fortunately for the next generations, it would seem that these hyper-protections are starting to fall out of fashion.

[artislife]

105. Well this another issue we must agree to disagree on. nt

[Luminous Animal]

44. MADem has carved out a niche here that youth are worthless when it comes to politics

[MADem]

48. No--I've provided data that demonstrates that at least four of every five will stay home.

"Worthless" is the characterization that YOU brought into this conversation.

If you don't mean it, you should retract it.

[Luminous Animal]

52. I meant it and I will not retract it.

[MADem]

103. It is an inaccurate characterization. You can speak for yourself, not for me. nt

[Zen Democrat]

58. Maybe you don't know the cool Boomers.

There have always been uptight hung-up Boomers, even in the '60s.

[artislife]

79. I do! I am going to vote for one!

I have a group of women in their 60s who are awesome to me, we paint together, talk politics, go through deaths and a lot of breast cancer--not me, and I love the women who call themselves Crones.

http://www.mamasminstrel.net/bio_captimes.htm

So much wisdom.

But I don't like it when there is a generational "tsk tsk" about the "younger folks". It creates a knee jerk reaction in me.

Those women also listen to me, think I add a lot to the conversations..I have sat with their dying relatives, I have been called the death doula because my organizing and concierge business is about end of life and completion. I pet sit as well, but that is so my spirit gets replenished with energy, love and joy. So I can dive back into the end of life waters with clients who need to cross over with their estates, their emotions and their lives in the best of possible state.

Le sigh.
We are not all insipid humans who won't be fully matured until we reach a certain age.

[randys1]

151. SEveral have called in the shows today to say how bad Hillary is doing, how the dems

shouldnt worry about the debate they should worry about the drastic loss in support for Hillary

It is an orchestrated rightwing attack on Hillary

I have seen it here as well, of course

If you want to know what the rightwing TP attacks are for Hillary, just come to DU

[MADem]

154. Hmm. "Let the word go forth....."

Operation Chaos all over again.

[Fawke Em]

11. Zaid is a "he."

And "he" is assigned to cover the Sanders campaign.

That's why "his" stories are usually about Sanders.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Where is his story on this?

[Luminous Animal]

12. *His* and he is not wrong. Any journalist worth the title does not grant anything

"off the record" without prior agreement. The conceit of Brock to think otherwise.

[restorefreedom]

24. welcome to du

hold on tight lassie (or laddie)....it gets bumpy from here

[sabrina 1]

64. And? What does this have to do with that smarmy unethical moron David Brock

trying to hide who he was by assuming a reporter would not reveal his name as the snake who clearly hasn't changed one bit, not that we ever thought he had, and attempt to smear the good name of a man whose shoes he isn't fit to wipe.

Good for them for revealing who tried to do this.

He just HELPED Sanders more than he could know.

And shame on Hillary if she doesn't condemn this slime who spent the 'nineties trying to destroy Bill Clinton and whose despicable lies and tactics were SO disgusting that in the end they HELPED Clinton.

And when his own right wing buddies couldn't even stand him, he came running to Dems claiming he was 'sorry' as if anyone believed that. But Dems rightly USED him.

Surely you are not defending this person? Did you think he had 'changed'? No one I know ever thought so, and we were right.

Leopards don't change their spots, and this one surely hasn't. But it's at least comic relief to watch him squirm when he was asked to explain himself. THAT will circulate the internet forever and will adversely affect Hillary unless she condemns it as she should

Bernie has so many times defended her. Not from anyone who represents him, in fact he could easily have gone along with media hosts and subtly agreed with them when they tried to get him to speak negatively about her, but he did not.

People are now watching to see what her campaign does about this unethical, smear monger. As he always was.

[roguevalley]

73. apparently in their world he can change but youth can't. welcome to pleasantville

[dorkzilla]

80. did you know that Pleasantville is actually the town that borders Chappaqua, where HRC lives?

You were being more apropos than you thought!

[Bjorn Against]

81. I did not even know there was an actual town named Pleasantville

The movie Pleasantville is one of my all time favorites however, brilliant movie.

[dorkzilla]

85. Yep! I lived there for years, had my first business there and now live in the town

That borders Chappaqua to the west on the Hudson but the town's couldn't be more different. My town is very blue color and very diverse ethnically. Pleasantville is middle-class and predominately white and Chappaqua is where the rich people breathe their rarified air. It's gorgeous, lots of pre-Revolutionary houses and lots of disposable cash.

[roguevalley]

97. on God! Lol!

[octoberlib]

65. He.

Zaid Jilani is an American blogger and campaigner for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which is also known as BoldProgressives.org.[1] Born and raised in Georgia to parents of Pakistani origin, he attended the University of Georgia, where he helped found its first progressive newspaper.[2] Prior to working for PCCC, he was a blogger for ThinkProgress, a blog for the Center for American Progress.[3] In 2011, he had been working as a campaigner for the Democrats.[2] He is a frequent writer for a number of outlets including Salon (website), The Huffington Post, and The Nation.[4][5][6] Following the NSA wiretapping scandal of 2013, he presented over 100,000 signatures to the United States Congress against government spying on American citizens.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaid_Jilani

[Catherina]

98. What? Really? Well off with her head right now then!

I'm really really really really sorry that the candidate you're here to promote is having such a bad few months.

Especially when the next few ones aren't looking up at all.

My deepest saddest sympathies.

Maybe in 2020?

[Aerows]

109. If a Sanders supporter pulled you

out of a fire, and stated that fire was hot, would you go back into the fire to spite them?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

3. Brock won't defend his own email.

He got laughed at by reporters on TV, after he sputtered and refused to talk about it.

[virtualobserver]

4. I would bet he is goin' to get a good talkin' to.....

[HooptieWagon]

5. Clinton campaign a mess...

No shit. It was only a matter of time before she shot herself in the foot. Rinse, and repeat.

[Fred Sanders]

9. The OP did not even quote the tweet correctly.

[Fawke Em]

15. It wasn't in quotes.

I paraphrased.

The Clinton "camp" is a mess.

There - see I quoted the exact word Zaid used and used quotation marks.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Substituting one word with another from a 20 word tweet is not paraphrasing! It is substituting!!

[Fawke Em]

21. Paraphrasing:

express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

And a headline, or title in this case, usually cuts to the chase. I did.

[arcane1]

40. The level of nit-picking to distract us from the actual topic is amazing to me.

We better make certain our punctuation is perfect too!

[dorkzilla]

50. yeah but it's not working...

Next they'll be like "okay, Brock is running a superpac Hillary is coordinating openly with and Brock admitted the whole thing and Hillary's numbers are slipping because she keeps shapeshifting from progressive to moderate and she's sending boxes of household products to people as thank yous and even if we have proof and 1st person admissions and polling numbers LOOK AT THAT PINK PONY OVER THERE!"

This schtick is boring already.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Tweets are reporting? If Zaid Jilani, whoever he/she is, said so!!? And the 20 word tweet says "camp".... at least get that right.

Because a reporter has an opinion just makes it a reporter's opinion, equal to so many at DU....although using 20 words is great reporting, got to admit that.

[morningfog]

19. So Brock debunk his email?

The camp is a mess. Hillary has always been a horrible campaigner. She's just bad at managing her people. She'd make a crumby president.

[Fawke Em]

20. Yes, Tweets are the reporters opinion. So what?

This person is an "actual" reporter who works in progressive media and knows the players in this particular escapade, but even without that, the updated story at the Huff Po says this:

Due to an editing error, this article initially stated that Correct the Record did not request that its email be off the record. It did, in fact, request that, but the reporter who received the email never agreed to those terms.

And, yes, it has to be agreed upon and usually BEFORE information is exchanged. David Brock would know this given his background. I know that.

[cyberswede]

43. I wonder what other stuff Correct the Record is saying off the record?

And is the point of emailing reporters info off the record to get those reporters to dig into those stories & run with them?

Can't wait to see what's next.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. You seem tense, Fred.

[dorkzilla]

53. LOL! nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

112. +1 n/t

[sibelian]

125. It's just a person, saying something!

Why would ANY of us have the least interest in people talking about... ya know... stuff...

[HereSince1628]

22. A mess? I dunno, is that code for pissed-off?

I have no doubt there's some red-face over there.

Meanwhile in 'Mediaworld' there's certain to be a whole bunch of reporters trying to get a handle on the details of campaign finance laws. I suggest they contact their colleagues in Wisconsin. Our reporters have years of experience with that from dealing with Scott Walker's John Doe probes

[ibegurpard]

59. Interesting

That a lot of threads about Hillary aren't generating much argument but this one about her campaign is drawing them like flies on shit. I sense some butthurt.

[portlander23]

60. dark money

[jalan48]

69. Hillary's campaign a mess? Maybe more cosmetic kits are called for.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. HILLARY™: She's got WHAT VOTERS CRAVE!!!

Plan another spontaneity rollout! Or a carefully honed presentation of authenticity!

[OnyxCollie]

75. !!!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

113. Voters got that she is craven! n/t

[MisterP]

77. SWAG

[ancianita]

76. THIS tack could go on without media mention for quite some time. I wonder how "off the record" works

that strategy to advantage. It's like forcing an off-side in a scrimmage. Maybe they're testing something. She's too experienced at presidential runs for this to be some unauthorized move.

[Fawke Em]

92. She may be, but I think what happened is that Brock just ASSUMED

when he sent the email that the reporter would bow to him and not reveal his name because he asked.

Well, the reporter never agreed to go "off the record" before Brock sent the information - he sent it in the same email where he asked to be off the record - and didn't agree to the terms.

[Babel_17]

134. It's possible that Brock bet that reporters would go along with a quid pro quo

He'd continue to relay dirt that, by way of his connection to the Clinton camp, as well as his own resources, he was uniquely positioned to provide, if reporters protected him as a source.

If so, wow, because that's like something right out of his book, Blinded by the Right, but now he's recapitulating those tactics on behalf of the Democratic front runner. Let the amateur online psychoanalysis begin.

He's going to be in for it now. And wow did he drag in the Clinton campaign into this as well. Cutting him loose won't look good (or be without nasty repercussions) so they might have to embrace him tighter. Huh, that might have been his fall back position all along. Lovely thought, and so reminiscent of the Republican smear machine of the '90s.

But if I had to bet I'd guess that there will just be a redundant firewall placed between Brock and people of note in the Clinton camp.

P.S. The looming question: What journalists are ok with protecting Brock, and is he continuing to send out his e-mails to them?

[Aerows]

106. Rather obvious at this point

They don't want to say anything to disrupt the narrative, and yet they are being quiet in hopes of not getting derided (being unemployed, too).

Those two elements are hallmarks of abysmal leadership.

[Capt. Obvious]

127. Pfft. You expect us to take someone with that avatar seriously?

[Warren DeMontague]

129. We hear all sorts of talk on DU about how Candidates' supporters and their attitudes can alienate

various voter groups, to the point of driving people away from their candidate.

I happen to think that anecdotal reports of that sort of phenomenon are overblown, personally.

Nevertheless maybe some Hillary people should examine their offhand dismissal -even mocking- of Millennials and their concerns, in light of information like this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253807-sanders-surges-past-hillary-among-college-students

[hifiguy]

135. I've seen this before.

Big Boom.