"The race was shockingly close. Gore won the popular vote. But he lost narrowly in the Electoral College after an absurdly close race in Florida was resolved by a genuinely ludicrous Supreme Court decision that had to have been written with a knowing smirk. Had even a miniscule percentage of Nader’s 97,421 Florida votes gone to Gore, George W. Bush would never have been president. Very few people who have studied the Florida vote dispute this."
OK, actually there are pages of disputes about this Ralph Nader effect but what about the supposed hundreds of thousands of voters whose votes were not counted? Or the wink and nod from the SCOTUS decision? Or that the electoral college didn't support the popular vote? None of those matter, only Nader's votes made the difference? Do you realize how that sounds?
"The predictable fiasco of his 8 years in office happened because progressives (back then we just called ourselves liberals) couldn’t tell the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Many stayed home because the outgoing Clinton Administration did some things that turned out not to be very progressive at all, and people were super frustrated and kind of bored. Some voted for Bush."
So the Democrats haven't learned how to keep their electorate happy but ... it's all on the millennials to fix that up and keep them in power because the alternative? There's no interest in actually making the democrat party more responsive to its electorate's needs?
How about all the difficulties the DNC has with morals and scruples and whatnot in cheating to keep Bernie from becoming the candidate, because they planned on Hillary as the candidate from the beginning? Do they realize that an actual vote at convention would have probably put this to rest? Were they that scared of the outcome?
This article doesn't seem to address the things that are bothering millennials about voting for Hillary or how continuing to vote for a party that is not making its electorate happy is going to change that party - instead they seem to be asking the electorate to change it's priorities.
Here they sit again, with a critique of not having been very progressive at all and people are frustrated. Fear is not a good reason to vote for someone, and at some point the Democrats are going to have to realize their 'lesser of two evils' argument is really stupid when they could be the 'good' instead. They have had every opportunity to work for the people, but in so many ways they chose to stick with working for their corporations, and then they wonder why people are disenchanted?
It would go a long ways if President Obama weren't pushing the TPP, or if Hillary even asked him not to, but instead she has surrounded herself with pro-TPP transition team, pro-TPP VP, and she herself has only changed her mind during this campaign on the golden standard of trade agreements she liked not so many months ago. There are some good critiques of the dems that should not have been glossed over with fear.
In the end, how do democrats continue to support their rightward drifting party when it happily splits and pits the party against one another to keep its agenda intact? And then uses fear of the other party as its main party whip..
So, say the millennials vote for Clinton. In 16 years, what will change with the Democrats that they will be a party that does not have to divide and conquer its own, or scare them into voting for them?
"The race was shockingly close. Gore won the popular vote. But he lost narrowly in the Electoral College after an absurdly close race in Florida was resolved by a genuinely ludicrous Supreme Court decision that had to have been written with a knowing smirk. Had even a miniscule percentage of Nader’s 97,421 Florida votes gone to Gore, George W. Bush would never have been president. Very few people who have studied the Florida vote dispute this."
OK, actually there are pages of disputes about this Ralph Nader effect but what about the supposed hundreds of thousands of voters whose votes were not counted? Or the wink and nod from the SCOTUS decision? Or that the electoral college didn't support the popular vote? None of those matter, only Nader's votes made the difference? Do you realize how that sounds?
"The predictable fiasco of his 8 years in office happened because progressives (back then we just called ourselves liberals) couldn’t tell the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Many stayed home because the outgoing Clinton Administration did some things that turned out not to be very progressive at all, and people were super frustrated and kind of bored. Some voted for Bush."
So the Democrats haven't learned how to keep their electorate happy but ... it's all on the millennials to fix that up and keep them in power because the alternative? There's no interest in actually making the democrat party more responsive to its electorate's needs?
How about all the difficulties the DNC has with morals and scruples and whatnot in cheating to keep Bernie from becoming the candidate, because they planned on Hillary as the candidate from the beginning? Do they realize that an actual vote at convention would have probably put this to rest? Were they that scared of the outcome?
This article doesn't seem to address the things that are bothering millennials about voting for Hillary or how continuing to vote for a party that is not making its electorate happy is going to change that party - instead they seem to be asking the electorate to change it's priorities.
Here they sit again, with a critique of not having been very progressive at all and people are frustrated. Fear is not a good reason to vote for someone, and at some point the Democrats are going to have to realize their 'lesser of two evils' argument is really stupid when they could be the 'good' instead. They have had every opportunity to work for the people, but in so many ways they chose to stick with working for their corporations, and then they wonder why people are disenchanted?
It would go a long ways if President Obama weren't pushing the TPP, or if Hillary even asked him not to, but instead she has surrounded herself with pro-TPP transition team, pro-TPP VP, and she herself has only changed her mind during this campaign on the golden standard of trade agreements she liked not so many months ago. There are some good critiques of the dems that should not have been glossed over with fear.
In the end, how do democrats continue to support their rightward drifting party when it happily splits and pits the party against one another to keep its agenda intact? And then uses fear of the other party as its main party whip..
So, say the millennials vote for Clinton. In 16 years, what will change with the Democrats that they will be a party that does not have to divide and conquer its own, or scare them into voting for them?