Display:


Re: It's an excellent book, I agree, but... (none / 0)

It's funny how Obama supporters assume that if Clinton were not the nominee, that Obama would win over the white working class, even though there is not an indication that he would, but they have the belief that Clinton couldn't win over the youth, even though she beat Obama among the youth in places like  California and Massachusetts.

On the contrary, I do agree that Obama is the obvious millennial candidate in the youth sense, but I have my doubts about his ability to win the GE, and on this issue, as compared with Clinton-- which is something similar to what the authors have on their blog:

However, the close nominating contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton puts the prospects of a Democratic realignment based on the Millennial Generation in real jeopardy. A large majority of Millennials prefers Obama over Clinton. That difference in candidate preference by itself would not cost the Democrats the support of Millennials should Hillary Clinton ultimately become the Democratic presidential nominee. If anything, Millennials are more loyal to their political party than older, more independent thinking Boomers. A recent Pew Research Center survey indicated that the Boomer-based Clinton supporters would be more than twice as likely to leave the Democrats than the Millennial-based Obama supporters should their favorite candidate not win the Democratic presidential nomination.
I happen to agree with what they said in that post, Is the GENder Gap becoming a GENeration Gap?  Clinton's turnout of women on her behalf swamps whatever Obama has turned out in terms of the youth vote. We'll get into this more. Of course, what they follow up on has the caveat:

But Millennials, raised on principles of fairness and consensus decision making, will be particularly influenced by how the end game that decides the Democratic nomination plays out Unless the rest of this year's primaries produce a decisive outcome, the most important generational choice confronting the Democrats in the first half of this century will be made over the next several months by the party's super-delegates. If Hillary Clinton wins "fairly" after receiving the largest number of votes and having the most pledged delegates, a large majority of Millennials will likely remain Democrats and Senator Clinton will have a very good chance to lead a Democratic political realignment. If, on the other hand, Barack Obama, the Millennials' preferred candidate, is denied the nomination in a way that Millennials see as unfair, the Democrats will almost certainly lose an historic opportunity to win the loyalty of this generation and control of American national politics for the next four decades.
In this regard, I think Clinton holding the popular vote lead gives her the moral highground for the nomination and that would assuage any feelings of it being unfair. Alot of posters have the misunderstanding that the popular vote is just another procedural count, its nothing of the sort. The process of counting delegates from the states is a legitimate issue of procedure, but the counting of whom voted is a principle, especially for the Democratic Party.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's an excellent book, I agree, but... (none / 0)

Its sounds to me like you think 9/11 is the most recent realignment trigger.  Is that one of your reasons to support Clinton?


by gil44 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Parallels (none / 0)

Try this:  9/11 was "confirmation" that the Inner-driven Era of Reagan and Clinton from 1982 to 2000 was over.  As I see it, the actual trigger event that set off the current Crisis Era was the "outcome" 2000 election.  

Taking a look at the beginnings of previous Crisis Eras might be instructive:

The American Revolution
Trigger event:  Boston Tea Party (1773)
Confirming Event:  The "Shot Heard 'Round The World" (1776)

The Civil War
Trigger Event:  Dred Scot Decision (1857)
Confirming Event:  Lincoln's Election (1860)

Great Depression/World War II
Trigger Event:  Stock Market Crash (1929)
Confirming Event:  Roosevelt's Election (1932)


by Airpower on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how about this... (none / 0)

The Iraq War
Trigger Event: 9/11 Attack
Confirming Event: Obama's Election

A large part of the appeal of Obama is his message and style which is more distinctly anti-Bush than Clinton or McCain.  Bush's low public approval (nationally and internationally) create a public mood for something much different and a greater tolerance for a candidate who has been on the national scene for a shorter period of time.

 


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how about this... (none / 0)

That might be.  The only observation I have is that the five years from the start of the Iraq War (2003) to the 2008 election runs a little bit on the high side.  The average time between "trigger" event and "confirmation" is three years.  But time will tell.  One thing is for certain:  historians 20 to 40 years from now will be doing a lot of interesting analysis of the times in which we now live.  


by Airpower on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's an excellent book, I agree, but... (none / 0)

I actually questioned that thinking up above.

I voted for Clinton, after all my original choices were gone, because of the two, her and Obama, she's more likely to win.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

conjunctions count (none / 0)

...after receiving the largest number of votes and having the most pledged delegates...

Accepting and following the rules and metrics established at the beginning is also a principle.  Ask Al Gore.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]