Is Obama that bad that the millennials majority may vote Republican next Tuesday?

[theballerFKA Ace]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-millennials-turn-obama-favor-gop-led-congress/story?id=26553815

Says of the millennials who definitely will be voting, they will support a Republican candidate over a Democrat candidate 51% to 47% vice versa. Says 18-29 year old have reliably supported Democrats since 2004, but I find that hard to believe. I doubt the 18-29 group has supported a Republican since MAYBE Reagan.

Obviously Obama ain't running this year but you gotta believe that any "youth" voter voting Republican is really making a statement against Obama right? Why else would the majority of us vote Republican? Maybe a few who are against gun control, immigration amnesty, perhaps a very few on abortion or who planning on becoming self employed in the near future. But the majority???

[Patrick Chewing]

Why so shocked? Why should Millennials automatically vote for Democrats? I think Millennials voted blindly Democratic in the past and they are finally waking up.


The reality still is that the majority of the country is still Conservative, and this includes Conservative Liberals who take issue with Gun Control and abortion.

[KevinNYC]

Or to put it another way do Democrats have trouble turning out the young vote in off-year elections? That answer is yes.

But if you ask if 18-29 year olds if they prefer Democrats or Republicans, they prefer Democrats. See graphs below.

The catch is, if you ask about 18-29 year olds who definitely will be voting, they will support a Republican candidate over a Democrat candidate that's when you get 51% to 47% result.

From that poll. (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/demographic-and-political-profile-fall-2013-survey)
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/PartyIdentification.jpg

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/approvalcongress_0.png

The poll also showed there is a difference between the 18-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds. The younger ones are more anti-Obama.

The older ones remember the Bush years better. If you are 29 today, the first year you could vote was 2003 just as the Iraq war was starting.

[KevinNYC]

Says 18-29 year old have reliably supported Democrats since 2004, but I find that hard to believe. I doubt the 18-29 group has supported a Republican since MAYBE Reagan.

Both Bushes got more of the younger vote than Clinton did.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2011/11/11-3-11-27.png

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Racism!

[GimmeThat]

the possibility of the young people who prefers a quiet conservative

perhaps, just a reflection of traumatic experience about politicians in general.

[nathanjizzle]

Politics is dumb. Even the original post is laced with speculation and agenda

[embersyc]

They must be too young to remember how absolutely devastating 8 years of Bush was to the country.

The recovery has been slow, but at least there has been one.

[GimmeThat]

They must be too young to remember how absolutely devastating 8 years of Bush was to the country.

The recovery has been slow, but at least there has been one.


you want to know what happened to the president after the one who wanted to keep the oil/gas price low (which is related to the standard of living) by raising the minimum wage?

the president inherited an economy where the wealth disparity can't necessarily be solved even by raising taxes only on the wealthy.

the president probably had to focus heavily on the middle class and even forget about the poor to a certain extent to even have

"a recovery that has been slow, but at least there has been one"

[Dresta]

They must be too young to remember how absolutely devastating 8 years of Bush was to the country.

The recovery has been slow, but at least there has been one.
The recovery has been so slow that we are already due another downturn (historically) and interest rates haven't even been raised yet.

When even establishment economics editors like Robert Peston are seeing the signs that growth has been anaemic and that there is trouble round the corner you know things aren't good:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29817100

[GimmeThat]

The recovery has been so slow that we are already due another downturn (historically) and interest rates haven't even been raised yet.

When even establishment economics editors like Robert Peston are seeing the signs that growth has been anaemic and that there is trouble round the corner you know things aren't good:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29817100


because bernanke kept saying that the interest rates wouldn't be raised during the beginning of the recession in order to keep the market calm.

there hadn't been someone from the leadership position from the Fed saying that the interest rates will be raised because they think that the recover has been so fragile.

when they should be taking advantages of every downturn in the market since there's been some major growth in % (instead of comparing the DOW point to pre-recession level) of making statements that the interest rates WILL be raised. and who knows, perhaps should have done so DURING a market down turn to make the next growth to be that of more solid.


instead of, of course, another possible down turn without having the interest rates raised.



she probably thought of raising the interest rates all at once to let the market adjust to it, which will then indirectly help achieve the goal of slowing down the market growth in order to avoid another bear market caused directly by the Fed policy.

at least the Fed still have a few tools left to monitor growth.

[NumberSix]

you want to know what happened to the president after the one who wanted to keep the oil/gas price low (which is related to the standard of living) by raising the minimum wage?

the president inherited an economy where the wealth disparity can't necessarily be solved even by raising taxes only on the wealthy.

the president probably had to focus heavily on the middle class and even forget about the poor to a certain extent to even have

"a recovery that has been slow, but at least there has been one"
Why do you think wealth disparity is something that needs to be "solved"?

[MadeFromDust]

Yes. He's that bad.

[Godzuki]

he's so bad, and in general Dem foreign policy is so soft/weak, as well as some Domestic issues are so politically correct unrealistic with Dem stances, i'll probably be voting Republican next election. and i've despised the Republican party on so many levels for years~

i'll definitely never be voting for a black Prez ever again, either :pimp:

[MavsSuperFan]

its a midterm election, young people were not going to have much of an impact anyways.

[kentatm]

its a midterm election, young people were not going to have much of an impact anyways.


This

Young people don't turn out for mid terms.

Plus, usually the sitting President's party loses some Senate and Congressional seats in mid term elections.

Honestly, I wish we could get rid of them completely b/c all it does is cause more gridlock b/c a large enough chunk of people are ALWAYS running for office and are too ****ing scared to do a damn thing for fear of pissing off their electorate.

It doesn't help that a lot of Dems are being massive titty babies and are running from Obama instead of going hard like Repubs do with a "**** you my guy is great and lemmie tell your why" attitude. Dems for whatever reason suck at branding while Repubs tend to kick ass at messaging.

If they would grow some sack and actually defend their accomplishments and even *gasp* go on the attack when opponents completely make shit up they would do a hell of a lot better.

[masonanddixon]

People should be voting for Nader/Green party.

[RidonKs]

the millennials not voting for obama because he is that bad aren't voting republican instead. they are voting independent or they aren't voting at all. which leads to republican victories so your confusion is understandable.

[masonanddixon]

the millennials not voting for obama because he is that bad aren't voting republican instead. they are voting independent or they aren't voting at all. which leads to republican victories so your confusion is understandable.

I remember in LA all the Millenials were in the bars ecstatic when Obama won. It was like they hit the lottery. I wonder what they all think now.

[Dresta]

Why do you think wealth disparity is something that needs to be "solved"?
Because some people can only think in terms of 'fairness' and this clouds their ability to think clearly.

Wealth disparity should be utterly irrelevant if the vast majority (people are always going to lose their jobs if the market is going to be dynamic - so it can never be all) are also getting wealthier. Even the first 'progressive' reforms under Teddy Roosevelt came in a time of material prosperity, where the reformers were themselves getting richer, but simply couldn't stomach the thought of just how rich others were becoming. The drive for wealth equality has always been driven mostly by envy and fear: envy towards those earning more money 'unjustifiably' and the very primitive and common human fear of big things (hence why saying the 1% gets a 'big number' of money) gets them all agitated.

In the present case though, Obama has been making wealth disparity worse by implementing forms of hidden and regressive taxation that hurt the poor most, while also propping up asset holders and banks with lots of easy credit. Most people don't understand this, so they continue to blame all wealth disparity on the all-powerful entity known as the 'corporation' which can take the blame for all the bad things in the world (how simple!). So wealth right now is artificially skewed towards economic inequality, while at the same time, a progressive taxation system that restricts the ambitions of the middle classes continues to redistribute wealth so as to make society more 'equal' - what a ****ing stupid country!

[GimmeThat]

Why do you think wealth disparity is something that needs to be "solved"?


if the rich people plays their hands tight
not even the government could sustain itself in the global stage


but really, I rather screw over the rich people instead of my re-election


because you know, trying to flip an under cooked pan-cake
get you no where

[Nastradamus]

They must be too young to remember how absolutely devastating 8 years of Bush was to the country.

The recovery has been slow, but at least there has been one.

Pretty much. Obama has done everything I could have reasonably hoped for. Now is not the time to be putting a Republican into office.

He has

- Saved the auto industry

- Jump started the economy(got unemployemnt rated to manageable level, Dow up, GDP up)

- Gotten the deficit under control(better than it ever was under "fiscally conservative" Reagan)

- Been the most environmentally friendly president since Teddy Roosevelt

- Got rid of don't ask don't tell and has overseen the country as near every state has legalized gay marriage.

- Increased Pell Grants and passed legislation to help people with student loan debt.

- Cracked down on Wall Street and credit card companies(though not enough)

- Decreased soldiers in Iraq down to almost nothing and decreased them in Afghanistan as well.

[GimmeThat]

This

Young people don't turn out for mid terms.

Plus, usually the sitting President's party loses some Senate and Congressional seats in mid term elections.

Honestly, I wish we could get rid of them completely b/c all it does is cause more gridlock b/c a large enough chunk of people are ALWAYS running for office and are too ****ing scared to do a damn thing for fear of pissing off their electorate.




ehh, the congressmans play it safe, the senators play it bold

then there are those who are unsustainable tea party/liberals disguised as progressive/independent I suppose

[GimmeThat]

Pretty much. Obama has done everything I could have reasonably hoped for. Now is not the time to be putting a Republican into office.

He has

- Saved the auto industry

- Jump started the economy(got unemployemnt rated to manageable level, Dow up, GDP up)

- Gotten the deficit under control(better than it ever was under "fiscally conservative" Reagan)

- Been the most environmentally friendly president since Teddy Roosevelt

- Got rid of don't ask don't tell and has overseen the country as near every state has legalized gay marriage.

- Increased Pell Grants and passed legislation to help people with student loan debt.

- Cracked down on Wall Street and credit card companies(though not enough)

- Decreased soldiers in Iraq down to almost nothing and decreased them in Afghanistan as well.


blue is how I feel as a progressive point of view, in which the bullet point itself justifies its achievement

teal, is where I feel the details makes the justification of the bullet point as to how long the effort may last as well as its effect

red, is something where I might consider it to be a bit extreme to call it an "achievement" of the president

the green part, I feel like getting rid of the don't ask don't tell is really the major take away. as for seeing the rest of the country to legalize gay marriage. well, I am happy to hear that the state government is still very well aware of the fact that the federal government exist.

[MavsSuperFan]

also with as gridlocked as congress is, will it actually change that much if the GOP takes over the senate?

They already control the house, and its extremely unlikely the GOP will win a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 senators).

Most likely the GOP takes control of the senate, but falls short of 60 senators.

and they are almost assured of holding the house.

Dems can gridlock anything they dont like with the filibuster and if that fails (eg. a few dems break rank) obama can veto as president. (its very unlikely the gop will win enough seats in the house to override vetos and for sure they wont in the senate)

Honestly I dont see how this election will change very much. The GOP will not gain enough seats to dictate policy. It will be as it is now with both sides needing to achieve compromise. (and most likely achieving nothing)

[Timmy D for MVP]

Why do you think wealth disparity is something that needs to be "solved"?

History.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The GOP will promptly lose the Senate in 2016, along with the presidential race. They only have the House through gerrymandering (Dems actually got more votes in 2012), and this year's race is tailor-made for them to win.

Anyone who thinks Tuesday marks a Republican resurgence is delusional.

[Patrick Chewing]

The GOP will promptly lose the Senate in 2016, along with the presidential race. They only have the House through gerrymandering (Dems actually got more votes in 2012), and this year's race is tailor-made for them to win.

Anyone who thinks Tuesday marks a Republican resurgence is delusional.


You are a delusion.