tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post4089681285369912290..comments2024-03-28T18:59:21.172-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Incrementalist Democrat voters more risk-averse with GOP incumbent, less inclined to take a chance on Bernie than in 2016agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-39473383914600981552019-05-18T17:31:15.837-04:002019-05-18T17:31:15.837-04:00"The generational gap is the biggest one, and..."The generational gap is the biggest one, and will only go away through the aging-out of the Boomers (Silents are already a fairly small chunk of the electorate), and the aging-in of their echo-boom children the Millennials."<br /><br />There's a New Republic article that quotes an elite Dem Boomer as saying something like "hey, I was there in '68, i get why kids today want change, but just be patient and let us do some caretaking".<br /><br />But he "doesn't get it". If he did, he'd denounce neo-liberalism and join the rebel faction. It seems like the writer was using that comment to illustrate how conceited and entitled today's elders are; we got to cause trouble 50 years ago, but you're not supposed to. The article runs through why the status quo won't accept any objections, including the familiar refrains that "individualism" and "liberal democracy" are a shield with which to guard against the "authoritarian" regimes that arose in the 1930's-1970's (not that they would admit that a lot of the public actually <i>wanted</i> closed borders and Robin Hood econ policies at that time, though Hitler et al may have abused the popular desire for mono-culturalism in some respects). <br /><br />At Unz, I often make the point that BAU can't continue forever, simply because a system is built by a generation, but later generations perceive that the system wasn't designed by them or for them, and as such, things have to change. And it's usually Boomers who stubbornly insist that "nothing will ever change" or that certain problems have been around "forever" and will never go away. Well, if you're not satisfied that you got "everything" you wanted out of life, or are resentful that others did better than you, I suppose you might be that cynical. Back in reality, younger generations can tell that, objectively speaking, we once did do a better job of taking care of each other. Oh, and globalist turbo-capitalism, and white man's burden foreign policy w/open borders, were things that Silents and Boomers bought into in the 80's although many of them now stridently deny any responsibility (well, if not you, then who really was responsible? Russian bots?)<br /><br />Also, the ideological phase cycle is something that's often glossed over. Each cycle lasts about 50 years, which is about the length of time that each generation has in adulthood (age 20-70). It's typically two generations which ushers in a cycle, and once those generations are elders, the cycle must stop and a new one starts. The Progressive era was about 1880-1930 (Progressive and Missionary), the New Deal era (Lost and GI)1930-1980, and the Neo-lib era (Silent and Boomer) about 1980-2030.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-49004985766849134832019-05-18T16:20:51.999-04:002019-05-18T16:20:51.999-04:00The generational gap is the biggest one, and will ...The generational gap is the biggest one, and will only go away through the aging-out of the Boomers (Silents are already a fairly small chunk of the electorate), and the aging-in of their echo-boom children the Millennials.<br /><br />It's pretty close to that tipping point, but not until around 2020 -- meaning, too late for the 2020 primary.<br /><br />But what this post is getting at is that even among Bernie's 2016 voters, including his under-40 post-Boomer supporters, a decent chunk are getting nervous about going from Trump to Bernie, which is too large of a gap to leap in a single bound, whereas they thought it was feasible to leap from Obama to Bernie in a single bound.<br /><br />Ditto for the Nader youth -- it wasn't so much that they accepted the scolding from Boomers like Moore, as that they felt nervous going from Bush to Nader, compared to going from Clinton to Nader.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-62534805522058588462019-05-18T10:13:46.803-04:002019-05-18T10:13:46.803-04:00https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/...https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/joe-biden-winning-big-older-voters/589555/<br /><br />Older Dem voters are partisan and establishment loyalists, who will accept a Reaganite if it means getting the mean Republican bounced out. Younger voters are fed up with neo-liberalism. However, younger adults just aren't reliable voters, and their enthusiasm for politics is quite fickle (as you point out, the youthful Naderites became remorseful, and slinked away once the generally older Dem partisans started accusing Nader of costing Gore the election).<br /><br />The article also makes clear that the generational nature isn't so much post-Boomer, as it is those born before or after about 1971. The generation that starred in Red Dawn (early Gen X-ers) is still very nervous about transitioning to a more Leftist culture, and often derides younger voters as "spoiled brats" who feel entitled to get that which they didn't earn. Neil Howe also says that Reaganism gets more popular as you go from the early Boomer cohort to the early X cohort, but then people born after about 1971 are substantially more likely to be not just Dems, but quite Leftist Dems at that. Those of us born in the 70's and 80's need to remember that a lot of people born in the 1960's pulled the lever for Reagan and GHW Bush.<br /><br />"one-quarter have abandoned him for either Beto or Buttigieg -- both of whom would satisfy an incrementalist's desire to have a centrist for 2020"<br /><br />Would Beto or Buttgoblin win over Obama to Trump voters to a victorious degree? Gore couldn't convince normies that a continuation of Bill Clinton was appealing, could any of the three B's convince normies that we need another term of Obama after Hilary failed to make the case already?Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-17857653398405369512019-05-15T21:52:29.615-04:002019-05-15T21:52:29.615-04:00(Immiseration)(Immiseration)dbk_999https://www.blogger.com/profile/05968807302466562896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2116090645418120082019-05-15T21:34:54.005-04:002019-05-15T21:34:54.005-04:00I hink the problem is also bad luck. While i thon...I hink the problem is also bad luck. While i thonk that the so called "low unemployment " ( *lowest since 1969*) is a fraud, i think things are just good enough that enough people have become complacent about neoliberal ummiseration that this election will be a wash. 2024, when a downturn is more likely to have happened, when a lot ofpeople realize they will only have a job when theres a temporry boom, thats when reality will reassert itself. And people will realize the Centrist *how will we pay for it?" mainstream is not their friend. dbk_999https://www.blogger.com/profile/05968807302466562896noreply@blogger.com