What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democratic Challengers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Handyman said:
Better chance you get shot by one of those bullets whizzing by you on 394 than I ever become a Republican. You just really enjoy making ridiculous posts that have no basis in logic or fact dont you? I know I enjoy making you look foolish over them :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m close to 40 and find republicans to be the most reprehensible people around so that’s a no.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

5mn_Major said:
Relax.

Its a statistical fact. If the Trump/Clinton election age statistics hold, over 40% of Democrat male voters in their 20s and 30s will switch to become Republican voters when they're over 50. And I would bet large sums of money that most here are guys and that my prior statement is correct.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ook-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/
Click to expand...
Not sure that's what the piece is saying, it's just saying amongst the current voters of those age demographics that's what we currently see. I think our parents generation has a different outlook than ours though, especially after a lot of us graduated during a financial crisis and don't see socialism as some horrible evil like their generation obviously did growing up in the cold war era.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

5mn_Major said:
Relax.

Its a statistical fact.
Click to expand...

A misleading one. The people who post regularly on the Cafe threads are far more informed and politically savvy than the typical citizen. Most people slide through life with curiosity asleep and mind in neutral. They gradually bend to the right as they get older, wealthier, less sexually active, angrier, more insular, more paranoid, more intolerant, and as their bigotries fall out of step with a gradually improving social environment, just as they tend to become more religious.

As you go up the spectrum of political knowledge and intelligence, partisanship, in addition to being more skewed to the left, is more persistent, though when change does occur it is more extreme (e.g., the Trotskyites who went round the bend and became Neocons, or the teeny bopper libertarians who leave Fantasyland and become full-on liberals).
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

SJHovey said:
I think you're way off on this Handy. Not that I want Oprah to be President anymore than I would want Donald Trump to be President, but all elections have always been popularity contests. Even between people who are "politicians" instead of celebrities, we frequently talk about name recognition as a factor in the election.

Why do you have to be a politician to become elected President? We elected Eisenhower who was nothing more than a celebrity general.

The thing is, if Donald Trump were not corrupt, and if he had done what he said he was going to do and appoint talented, honest, "the best" people into his cabinet and other government positions, a "celebrity" president would work out just fine. Might even actually be a good President, since a lot of what we rely upon them for is to lead the country where it needs to go by persuasion from the "bully pulpit." If Oprah can convince millions of people to buy some stupid book, maybe she can convince the country we need universal health care or a change in the social security system, or whatever.

The problem is not having a celebrity president, or one with zero political experience. The problem is electing one who is corrupt and will only appoint corrupt toadies to his administration.
Click to expand...

It isnt about the popularity contest, I can understand that. The difference is when Trump ran he was running against other politicians people didnt trust and he won because he wasnt one of them. Fine people are morons it happens. If the Dems embrace that and go the same way then we are no longer even trying to have the best people represent us in the White House...the parties will continue to just find celebrities with no experience and zero business being there (but oodles of cash) because that is what the people will want. (because people dont think they just do what sounds cool) Career politicians will stick to Congress or become lobbyists and the WH will be American Idol.

It isnt just the celebrity...it is the fact that both will be running celebrities with no business running. You mention Eisenhower and yeah he wasnt a politician but at least he had military experience. He can speak on some aspects of American Foreign Policy. He commands the respect of the military because of rank and accomplishment. He is ten times the candidate either of these clowns is. (and I dont like Ike)

We cant have both parties doing this crap. If the GOP wants to embrace the Awful Businessman because he knows how to brand himself that is fine but then the Dems need to do things the right way. If they choose to lower themselves to the same level to appease the lazy masses then there is really no point to any of this anyways.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

Wait wait wait

FDR got all 3? Sure his wife was a real rug muncher, but how ethical is it to have sex with another??

jFK was baked out on pain drugs so certainly NOT stable. Plus he nailed anything with boobies... he was GTBTP before tD made it famous :D
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

mookie1995 said:
Wait wait wait

FDR got all 3? Sure his wife was a real rug muncher, but how ethical is it to have sex with another??

jFK was baked out on pain drugs so certainly NOT stable. Plus he nailed anything with boobies... he was GTBTP before tD made it famous :D
Click to expand...

I debated FDR on con law. I'm honestly not sure what depth he had on it, but he came from The Brahmin Class so he likely at least had a strong education in it.

Same on JFK. He was kinda a pretty boy dope -- the brains in that family was Bobby. Bobby would have been a 3, BTW. In fact Bobby's assassination is the worst tragedy in American political history. Without that we never have Nixon or Reagan or Cheney or Rumsfield or the Oil Quacks.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

Kepler said:
A misleading one. The people who post regularly on the Cafe threads are far more informed and politically savvy than the typical citizen. Most people slide through life with curiosity asleep and mind in neutral. They gradually bend to the right as they get older, wealthier, less sexually active, angrier, more insular, more paranoid, more intolerant, and as their bigotries fall out of step with a gradually improving social environment, just as they tend to become more religious.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is yes it's true with my parents generation and maybe it's true with all generations, but I'm not as certain that those assumptions all hold anymore. I think that generation just lived most of their life when the country and economy were on a clear upward trajectory for the vast majority of the time and while there was the oil related recession for a bit I'm not sure it was nearly as bad as the financial crisis we've had during our lifetime and the economy/job market/quality of life aren't seeing the significant gains they saw during their lifetime (inequality, access to affordable college, workers' rights, and what jobs are paying compared to what they used to pay are all worse). In their lifetime there was more opportunity (for white people anyway) and so a lot of them could kinda just tune out politics and live life on cruise control which resulted in the mess we have now.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

Handyman said:
It isnt about the popularity contest, I can understand that. The difference is when Trump ran he was running against other politicians people didnt trust and he won because he wasnt one of them. Fine people are morons it happens. If the Dems embrace that and go the same way then we are no longer even trying to have the best people represent us in the White House...the parties will continue to just find celebrities with no experience and zero business being there (but oodles of cash) because that is what the people will want. (because people dont think they just do what sounds cool) Career politicians will stick to Congress or become lobbyists and the WH will be American Idol.

It isnt just the celebrity...it is the fact that both will be running celebrities with no business running. You mention Eisenhower and yeah he wasnt a politician but at least he had military experience. He can speak on some aspects of American Foreign Policy. He commands the respect of the military because of rank and accomplishment. He is ten times the candidate either of these clowns is. (and I dont like Ike)

We cant have both parties doing this crap. If the GOP wants to embrace the Awful Businessman because he knows how to brand himself that is fine but then the Dems need to do things the right way. If they choose to lower themselves to the same level to appease the lazy masses then there is really no point to any of this anyways.
Click to expand...
You got a way to put the genie back in the bottle? Everything that the Republicans have done over the last 25 years has destroyed elections and Government. Trump is the pure culmination of the Republican's destruction and tear down of our Government. They get elected to destroy Government and they're doing it. Now with Trump getting elected the election process is destroyed. You had the Democrats whining on their side that Bernie got screwed, you have Donald claiming that 3 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote, and you had an electorate elect an unqualified buffoon who isn't even what he says he is (a successful businessman) to finish the job.

And you think the Democrats need to fight that by nominating John Kerry? Or Al Gore? Or Hillary Clinton again? Cause, I'll tell you what. All three of them were more qualified than the candidate they ran against. But, people wanted to have a beer with W. People hate Hillary. Now we're going to cross the chasm. Somehow there is this magical Democrat who will win because that Democrat isn't boring like Al Gore, or aloof like John Kerry, or female like Hillary Clinton. Somehow the Democrats have another Barack Obama in the tank. I have yet to see it.

If the chasm ultimately has Oprah on the other side of it sign me up. I learn my lessons.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

trixR4kids said:
The problem with this is yes it's true with my parents generation and maybe it's true with all generations, but I'm not as certain that those assumptions all hold anymore. I think that generation just lived most of their life when the country and economy were on a clear upward trajectory for the vast majority of the time and while there was the oil related recession for a bit I'm not sure it was nearly as bad as the financial crisis we've had during our lifetime and the economy/job market/quality of life aren't seeing the significant gains they saw during their lifetime. In their lifetime there was more opportunity (for white people anyway) and so a lot of them could kinda just tune out politics and live life on cruise control which resulted in the mess we have now.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. I would be interested in knowing whether the generation born in, say, 1890 and hit by the Great Depression right as they should have come into their own followed the usual descent into fat middle-aged conservatism. That was a generation that watched the predations of the rich destroy America during the roaring 20s, finally ending in the explosion of the system in the Great Depression, and then built the American miracle of the middle class on Americanized socialism with the New Deal. They won WW2 with their clipboards and logistics, translating an empowered working class into the economic edge we needed to beat the fascist regimes.

Being born in 1890 is roughly analogous to being born in around 1980. The rot sets in all through your early life and is taken for granted as you reach adulthood. Just as you should be kicking into high gear in your most productive years the grinding inequality foisted on the country by the right has destroyed all of your chances. All that's missing is the last big explosion -- the Great Dumpression.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

Kepler said:
All that's missing is the last big explosion -- the Great Dumpression.
Click to expand...

Didn't you say big business just got their big tax breaks ("the heist")? Business won't let the explosion happen until Trump is gone; there's too much money to be made in the mean time.

Yes, I just predicted possibly the longest economic expansion in US history, but if there's money to be made it'll run.

Whoever follows better have a big mop.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

The starting number of liberals vary, but the approximate fall off will be to the same degree anywhere you look. Posters of a younger age on USCHO will run far more liberal than overall society - but it will see the same approximate percentage fall off as anywhere else. The fall off will be similar in 2030 as it was in 1800. Its similar in MA as it is in AL. That's the way broad based statistical trends operate.

ScoobyDoo said:
You got a way to put the genie back in the bottle? Everything that the Republicans have done over the last 25 years has destroyed elections and Government. Trump is the pure culmination of the Republican's destruction and tear down of our Government. They get elected to destroy Government and they're doing it. Now with Trump getting elected the election process is destroyed. You had the Democrats whining on their side that Bernie got screwed, you have Donald claiming that 3 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote, and you had an electorate elect an unqualified buffoon who isn't even what he says he is (a successful businessman) to finish the job.

And you think the Democrats need to fight that by nominating John Kerry? Or Al Gore? Or Hillary Clinton again? Cause, I'll tell you what. All three of them were more qualified than the candidate they ran against. But, people wanted to have a beer with W. People hate Hillary. Now we're going to cross the chasm. Somehow there is this magical Democrat who will win because that Democrat isn't boring like Al Gore, or aloof like John Kerry, or female like Hillary Clinton. Somehow the Democrats have another Barack Obama in the tank. I have yet to see it.

If the chasm ultimately has Oprah on the other side of it sign me up. I learn my lessons.
Click to expand...

Of course, this is correct. What's most important is that the white house resident has good intentions...and if electability is an issue, then all else is secondary.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

5mn_Major said:
The starting number of liberals vary, but the approximate fall off will be to the same degree anywhere you look. Posters of a younger age on USCHO will run far more liberal than overall society - but it will see the same approximate percentage fall off as anywhere else. The fall off will be similar in 2030 as it was in 1800. Its similar in MA as it is in AL. That's the way broad based statistical trends operate.
Click to expand...

First of all, we have no good data before the middle of the 20th century.

And I think you need to take trix' argument into consideration. There is a difference now that we haven't had for about a century: the background condition of a rising America has been flipped by conservative policies and America is now in decline for all but the super rich. It was rational behavior for people to become complacent as they got older when they were on an up escalator. But America post-Reagan is an empty elevator shaft (just as it was designed to be by the people who lied to put those policies into place). Why would people relax into conservatism when conservatism has destroyed the American middle class that liberalism built in the first place?

The decline into social conservatism with age will still exist: the bigotries they picked up as children are eroding in the wider culture so by standing in one place they appear to move to the right as their older, even more bigoted parents and mentors die off and are replaced by younger, more tolerant people.

And the Sex Envy/Anger/Futility of the Olds will always be a factor, as they respond to their diminishing powers and attractiveness by trying to force control of women's bodies and choices and promulgate the superstitious Sex Fear that the Olds are always prey to as they near death.

But decline into economic conservatism is not a natural law. It was a rational choice as people moved into the Haves, but in a broken system which is shrinking the number of Haves, you'd expect the Olds to be just as p-ssed off and ready for reform as the young.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top