|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 06:59:55 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: 2024 will be the realigning election of our lifetimes  (Read 5326 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2017, 08:14:27 pm »

Trump would have won Ohio by one to three points in 2008. He might also have lost GA.

Trump's first win was in NH; younger voters there tended to favor Trump and Cruz over Kasich and Bush.

Protectionism is far more an EC strategy than a PV one.

If Trump appoints three Scalia equivalents, Roe and Obergefell are gone.

-GA was much whiter in 2008 than 2016, and Ohio was still in the midst of the backlash to Governor Taft, our Republican Governor who hit single-digit approval ratings in 2005-2006. Trump could maybe have pulled out Indiana, but otherwise the map would've been the same. (He might've lost AZ, but I think he would've pulled it out).

-This is true in NH, where under-30s were a stronger Trump demographic than the electorate as a whole, and some other New England states (I'd have to check to make sure; I think it was also true in Vermont, and perhaps RI), but broadly it was untrue. It was untrue in the Midwest and South, where the youth were weaker for Trump than average, and it was massively true in the West, where Trump sometimes ran double-digits weaker among younger voters (for instance, Rubio won under-30s in Nevada). They also tended to simply vote for whoever the strongest anti-Trump was rather than for anyone specific (sometimes breaking for Cruz/Kasich/Rubio depending on the state), which suggests that opposition to Trump rather than a liking for any one candidate was the main motivator. I'm a bit worried that if I continue to write about patterns in the Republican primary I'll summon uti, who loves to litigate this with me over and over again...

-This is true, but even there it isn't one that's going to work in the long-term. Ohio Republicans, who love Rob Portman, don't care about protectionism -- if anything, they mildly disfavor it, but they don't really care. There is a segment of Democrats who do, who Trump was able to convince to switch sides, while Republicans mostly stood by him. Any actual success in enacting protectionist policy will cause both agricultural areas and suburbs to bolt, fast.

-This is true but it seems unlikely. Nobody on the conservative side seems close to retirement (there are rumors about Thomas, but it seems unlikely given his increased activity on the Court of late), and nobody on the liberal side will go willingly. Breyer and Ginsburg are old (and Breyer was so obviously waiting for Hillary to replace Obama so he could retire...), but neither is in such bad health that they'll drop dead tomorrow. On the other hand, Scalia seemed to be doing OK, too. So we'll see.

I think 2024 or 2028 after an economic crisis would look like this with a tied PV.  That would be the realignment.  There's an outside chance it happens in 2020, but I think Trump will be reelected.



AK and NC are trending Democratic over the long-term.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2017, 08:20:50 pm »

Another good point to make is that trends are not forever. Trump's famous win in staunchly Democratic Trumbull County was not predicted by 2012 trends; indeed, the county trended Democratic in 2012. Reversion to the mean is a strong force, and most trends immediately reverse. Here is a map of which states trended the same way across Barack Obama's two elections:



Most states trended in opposite directions over the two elections. I expect Trump to have a similar pattern.

EDIT: Note that these actual strong trends for the most part were repeated in 2016, with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2017, 08:50:45 pm »

Eh, small consistent trends can end up mattering a lot. By far the strongest trend we've seen recently is in WV, of course, which has gone from being among the safest Democratic states to among the safest Republican in less than 20 years. It last trended Democratic in 1988; since then it has trended Republican at every election, 1992-1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016. MO/KY/AR have done so starting 1996; CA/VA/WA have all trended Democratic starting 2000. There are some pretty long-standing trends out there.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,878
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2017, 10:21:12 pm »

2008 was the realignment of our lifetimes.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2017, 10:29:16 pm »

2008 was the realignment of our lifetimes.

-No. Try the 1992-2000 period.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2017, 01:10:28 am »
« Edited: February 13, 2017, 01:12:15 am by Eharding »


Eh, to an extent, but Bill Clinton's wins in parts of the Deep South were very candidate-specific, and there was still a massive amount of ticket splitting in this era. Heck, Alabama elected a Democrat and New York a Republican to the Senate in 1992! And the various House seats that each party had in turf that favored the other party at the Presidential level was still at pretty high rates. I would say that the realignment has been in small flux over the past 20 years. Each election except for really 2004 and 2012 has been different from the last in a pretty significant way.

The 2008 results had a .94 correlation with the 2004 results; same for 2016 and 2012. Last time it was below that was 1996, due to America shaking off Perot and WJC's consolidation of the NE. Split districts dropped dramatically from 1992 to 2000. Interstate polarization also grew dramatically between 1992 and 2000. The yuge urban-rural divide and marriage gap also appeared in the 1990s.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,517


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2017, 03:14:47 am »

I believe that a Centrist third party will win in a landslide in 2024 after disasters from the right form 2017-2021 , and the left from 2021-2025
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,027


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2017, 05:45:38 am »

I believe that a Centrist third party will win in a landslide in 2024 after disasters from the right form 2017-2021 , and the left from 2021-2025

lol, maybe Huntsman-Webb?
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,183
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2017, 09:39:16 am »

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

You're the only one who said that. What is actually being discussed here is a pretty constant theme for both parties throughout American history.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,399
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2017, 10:47:01 am »

I believe that a Centrist third party will win in a landslide in 2024 after disasters from the right form 2017-2021 , and the left from 2021-2025

lol, maybe Huntsman-Webb?

I see that happening if Trump can't deliver but him or any of his underlings are beaten by 2024 ( Trump isn't substantially more popular yet everything is still R)
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,517


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2017, 12:04:55 pm »

I believe that a Centrist third party will win in a landslide in 2024 after disasters from the right form 2017-2021 , and the left from 2021-2025

lol, maybe Huntsman-Webb?

Probably Kasich - Webb or by then who ever that election version of those two are .
Logged
Buckhead Kelly
Patrick97
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2017, 12:08:09 pm »

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

You're the only one who said that. What is actually being discussed here is a pretty constant theme for both parties throughout American history.

Even if there is a realignment at the presidential level that favors the Democrats for one or two decades (I doubt it, but okay), Republicans will still show strength in gubernatorial and Senate races. Even the House should remain competitive.  

Thats because Democratic voters will be centered in large urban areas and states like CA, NY, NC, and GA. The Republican will also have an edge in senate and governor office because of this. The house will probably lean R unless they completely collapse in the suburbs. I thinks its to early to say that the next realignment will be the death of the Republican party but 2016 prove that the rust belt trend was faster than the sunbelt. But when it does we need to see the Republican strategy going forth before we talk about a permanent D majority.
Logged
UncleSam
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,613
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2017, 01:14:31 pm »

Can someone explain to me why millennialis won't trend right like the boomers before them? The boomers were a very liberal generation until recently after all.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,183
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2017, 02:39:07 pm »
« Edited: February 13, 2017, 02:48:59 pm by Virginia »

Can someone explain to me why millennialis won't trend right like the boomers before them? The boomers were a very liberal generation until recently after all.

Because the "trend conservative/Republican as they age" idea is a myth that refuses to die. Baby boomers gave Reagan major support in their youth (Obama-like margins in 1984, and Bush1 won 18-29 year olds by 6 points) and have tended to lean Republican most of their lives (yes, there are plenty of exceptions but that is what they are - exceptions, not the rule). There are parts of the boomer generation that aren't as conservative/Republican, particularly those whose views of the GOP were crafted by Nixon, but most of that generation has not voted in ways that would suggest it was "very liberal."

Further, Millennials and generations after it are more and more diverse, and Hispanics/African Americans have shown consistently high support for Democrats, meaning the Millennial+ vote will be more inelastic until Republicans can manage to broaden their tent.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,183
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2017, 03:42:47 pm »

And for the record, a realignment of the sorts here doesn't just mean presidential. No change in the political landscape is that limited. And when I think of a realignment, I don't think of "20 years straight of a Democratic president." There is nothing barring a Republican from winning during that time, and in all reality one probably would. The deeper effects are a change in long-term majorities straight down to the state level, and the general shift in policy over the following decades. I don't have exit polls per Congressional district, but assuming Democrats prevent another redistricting rout, I'd say the odds that the House advantage flips sometime over the next 15 years are significant. The GOP House advantage is not that big. Without the egregious gerrymandering from 2010 it'd likely be no larger than it was in the early 2000s, which is small and vulnerable.

But in the end, I don't think people TNVol look at politics that way anyway. From what I've seen, he probably assumes the Republican Party will fill in the gaps as they go along and generally assumes the status quo will stay the status quo until it no longer isn't, which imo is a very dull way of looking at things, but to each their own.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2017, 03:55:35 pm »

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2017, 10:29:07 pm »

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.

You picked the one election out of the last 7 in which the GOP (barely) won the popular vote, and that's your big point.  I'm almost starting to think you are an elaborate schtick.

-You are apparently pretending that neither candidate quality nor wars and the economy matter electorally. Bizarre. Bush was not an especially high-quality candidate. Neither was Trump, for that matter (though he was higher-quality than Mitt).
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2017, 11:58:14 pm »

Anyone who thinks the GOP will just die (both in Congress and in presidential races) because of how millennials vote has learned nothing from this election.

Why do you need to make an absurd straw man argument that is not what is actually being debated here?

This idea that there will be a realignment election that will lead to a >20-year long Democratic rule  (at minimum) at the presidential level is exactly what you are debating, though? So no, not really a strawman. Demographics aren't destiny, which is something your party had to learn the hard way last year. And no, I'm obviously not denying that the GOP needs to fix their demographic problems, or else they'll be in trouble, especially in states like TX and FL. I'd expect most presidential elections in the future to be quite competitive and I don't believe that there is an impenetrable blue or red wall. 

What poster said the GOP would simply die? 

It is very reasonable to argue that the GOP will find itself on the bad side of a realignment despite the 2016 results.  Lets not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.  I believe this is unprecedented in the last 100 years.

So if we look at past elections as an indicator, we see that Democrats have a general advantage when turnout is high (e.g., Presidential years)... that's the baseline...

Then we look at trendlines... we know the following:

1) Minorities have been a stable voting bloc for Democrats over the last 30 years... this is indisputable.

2) Republicans have made no serious inroads with minority voters.

3) The minority population has steadily grown in each and every Presidential election.

4) Republicans consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those 65+

5) Democrats consistently receive the highest share of the vote from those under 30.

6) Those voters over 65 are more likely to not be alive in 8 years than those under 30. 

7) Despite the adage that people get more conservative as they get older, most studies show that party alignment stays with people as they age.

Looking at all these factors it is entirely reasonable to summarize that a realigning election is on the near horizon given that the party in power is not the party that a) a majority of voters consistently choose on the Presidential level and b) the will likely benefit from demographic changes. 

-Tell that to John Kerry and George McGovern. 2004 was not a low-turnout election. And McGovern winning the under-20 vote foretold exactly nothing. Republicans have made very serious gains with minority voters since 20 years ago (losses with Asians offset by gains with Hispanics).

A realigning election will, of course, come, but not in 2024 (unless this party system's unusually short for some reason).

Tell the Democrats how to put their own house in order. They're the ones out of power.

On the contrary, McGovern winning the under-20 vote was a quite significant event. Barack Obama won twice with what can fairly be said to have basically been an updated, modern version of McGovern's platform.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,399
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2017, 11:31:05 am »

The GOP can continue keeping elections close these next 6-8 years by upping their margins with white voters but they'll hit a ceiling at about 65%. The remaining 35% of White people are either too socially liberal or fiscally liberal to vote for them. This remaining 35% are city urban white folk, white women, winetrack liberals, and white millenials who have no interest in Trumps Republican Party.

The GOP then only has two options to increase their share of the white vote beyond 65%: moderate on social issues (and lose parts of their evangelical base so...not happening) or moderate on fiscal issues (and lose their libertarian base along with a lot of big money donors...which they also won't do). Basically they'll have no choice but to start doing better with minorities going beyond 2020 if they want to stay competitive at the Presidential level and with Trump leading the Party I do not believe that will happen. Trump did marginally better with nonwhite voters than Romney did but Bush performed much better with Hispanics and Reagan performed much better with black voters compared to Trumps performance with either group.

Millenials are a much more liberal generation compared to boomers. Millenials will be 25-44 years of age going into 2024 and boomers will be 60-78. Many boomers will have died off and more millenials will be consistently voting. The math doesn't bode well for the GOP in any way.

At this point, the GOP's last hope is that Generation X (born 1965-1980) and Generation Z (all born 2000 of after) both start trending Republican.

I don't see Generation Z trending Republican while the GOP is actively trying to undo abortion and gay marriage on the state level as well as openly trying to suppress minority voters (Generation Z will be the most racially diverse voting population).  If anything Generation Z will be even more Democratic than Millennials unless the GOP immediately moderates their absurd and vile positions on gay marriage and other social issues.

...but Pepe. Tongue
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2017, 11:14:28 pm »
« Edited: March 28, 2017, 01:47:07 pm by Virginia »

The GOP can continue keeping elections close these next 6-8 years by upping their margins with white voters but they'll hit a ceiling at about 65%. The remaining 35% of White people are either too socially liberal or fiscally liberal to vote for them. This remaining 35% are city urban white folk, white women, winetrack liberals, and white millenials who have no interest in Trumps Republican Party.

The GOP then only has two options to increase their share of the white vote beyond 65%: moderate on social issues (and lose parts of their evangelical base so...not happening) or moderate on fiscal issues (and lose their libertarian base along with a lot of big money donors...which they also won't do). Basically they'll have no choice but to start doing better with minorities going beyond 2020 if they want to stay competitive at the Presidential level and with Trump leading the Party I do not believe that will happen. Trump did marginally better with nonwhite voters than Romney did but Bush performed much better with Hispanics and Reagan performed much better with black voters compared to Trumps performance with either group.

Millenials are a much more liberal generation compared to boomers. Millenials will be 25-44 years of age going into 2024 and boomers will be 60-78. Many boomers will have died off and more millenials will be consistently voting. The math doesn't bode well for the GOP in any way.

At this point, the GOP's last hope is that Generation X (born 1965-1980) and Generation Z (all born 2000 of after) both start trending Republican.

I don't see Generation Z trending Republican while the GOP is actively trying to undo abortion and gay marriage on the state level as well as openly trying to suppress minority voters (Generation Z will be the most racially diverse voting population).  If anything Generation Z will be even more Democratic than Millennials unless the GOP immediately moderates their absurd and vile positions on gay marriage and other social issues.

The best predictor of somebody's lifelong party affiliation is to look at what President was in power when they came of age and how that President was performing.

Right now the oldest of Gen Zers have barely turned 17 this year. The first wave of them (18-20 year olds) will come of age during the Trump or Pence presidency. Trump will likely be very unpopular and Pence will only be somewhat popular if he's seen as a stabilizing figure after Trump resigns or is impeached.

It's hard to say if Trump or Pence will win in 2020 and we can only guess what 2024-2036 will look like when all of Generation Z has reached adulthood (assuming their birth years will be 2000-2018). I do agree with you though. I think it's much more likely than not that Generation Z ends up being fairly liberal when all is said and done.

EDIT: Since you and I both believe that there will be a demcoratic realignment in the 2020's (which could last with the dems in power for 12+ years) then most of Generation Z will be liberal having come of age during popular or relatively popular democratic presidencies.

Agreed.  The real question is what year in the 2020's the realignment occurs.  I am pretty confident the demographics will be sufficiently altered by 2024 as boomers and older generations start to die off.

-What evidence do you have for this view of realignments? Does it work for the 19th century?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 17, 2017, 11:16:55 pm »

There will be a realignment; it will probably be in the 2030s, and it may involve the Dems becoming the party of the rich.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2017, 11:33:52 pm »

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2017, 11:37:04 pm »

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

Huh?

Because 2024 is the first Presidential election where Boomers+ will not be calling the shots.

-That's an arbitrary and useless category.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2017, 11:42:57 pm »

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

Huh?

Because 2024 is the first Presidential election where Boomers+ will not be calling the shots.

-That's an arbitrary and useless category.

Uh, no.  It's f'ing not.

-It is. What was the concrete electoral outcome of McGovern winning those under 23?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2017, 11:46:19 pm »

Why would it be 2024? Party systems generally last longer than this. Arbitrary generational categories are useless here.

Huh?

Because 2024 is the first Presidential election where Boomers+ will not be calling the shots.

-That's an arbitrary and useless category.

Uh, no.  It's f'ing not.

-It is. What was the concrete electoral outcome of McGovern winning those under 23?

I don't have the patience to deal with you today.  Another time.

-See? None.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines