USA Today Poll: Millennials Would "Flock" to Hillary Over Trump

A new poll at USA Today finds millennial voters now supporting Bernie Sanders would "flock" to Hillary if she and Trump are the nominees.

In a hypothetical Clinton v. Trump contest in November, voters under 35 would choose Clinton by a crushing 52%-19%, a preference that crosses demographic lines. Among whites, she'd be backed by nearly 2-1, 45%-26%. Among Hispanics, by more than 4-1, 61%-14%. Among Asian Americans, by 5-1, 60%-11%. Among African Americans, by 13-1, 67%-5%.

And the yawning gender gap she has against Sanders would vanish: Clinton would carry young men and women by almost identical margins of more than 2-1.

Nearly one in four Republicans would defect to the Democrats if the GOP nominated Trump against Clinton. Just 7% of Democrats would defect to the GOP.

< Ohio Democratic Town Hall | Obama's Supreme Court Choices >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    CNN reporting  "Sheriff investigating whether Trump incited riot".

    It would be more encouraging (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    If they were more reliable voters.

    Maybe this will get them rolling (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    Pretty clearly drastic stakes.

    Watching a clip from an Obama speech (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    last Friday. He is still great in campaign mode. No one ridicules Trump better. Can't wait till he is unleashed in the general election.

    'How good can that wine be?' Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    I think the millennials will be on board.

    100% yes (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    and I think Hillary will be quite competent at this approach, also ("a beautiful, tall wall" gave her perhaps the best laughs I've ever seen her get). I am very convinced by arguments that this is how you beat Trump.

    As Margaret Atwood said, and my experience has shown to be true.. "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."


    There's (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    a meme going around that Trump was driven to run because Obama Roasted him at the correspondent's dinner.

    Yes, I saw that story in the NYT (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    It goes on to say how Trump basically stalked Romney in 2012 asking for a role in the convention, the chance to endorse him publicly, etc. The opposite of what he says about how Romney begged him for his endorsement.

    I tend to believe the Romney version.


    Let us all join together (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    In hoping Donald does not have the last laugh

    lol; I tend to believe no-one's version. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    Yay, data! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    I am officially done worrying about the young'uns staying home or voting for Trump in November.

    A lot of people talking about the riots (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    And how it "helps" Donald.  Well, this is how it doesn't.   It's driving a rift between Bernie supporters and Trump - a rift that maybe was needed.

    I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be drawn to Trump from this - the question is - will it balance out those who are disgusted by it.  Believe it or not, I think the answer to that is hell no.  And I think there were a number of young people who were possibly flirting with the idea of jumping to Trump for his anti-establishment position that are now completely turned off by it.

    Trump and Bernie supporters fighting is good for one person only - Hillary, the adult in the room.

    Speaking (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    for myself only here but I have said it helps Trump but it only helps Trump with GOP voters and in the GOP primary. I really don't think this kind of mess helps in a general election and in fact hurts him.

    I had not thought about it that way but perhaps you have a point. I would have thought that younger people would not have been attracted to Trump even with his "anti-establishment" message simply because of the GOP platform. However if they don't really care about issues and just are generally mad at the "establishment" then I guess it would make sense for them to consider Trump.


    Reminds me of a Facebook post (4.33 / 6) (#17)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    making the rounds:

    Bernie: "I think America should get a pony."

    Hillary: "How will you pay for the pony? Where will the pony come from? How will you get Congress to agree to the pony?"

    Bernie: "Hillary thinks America doesn't deserve a pony."

    Bernie Supporters: "Hilary hates ponies!"

    Hillary: "Actually, I love ponies."

    Bernie Supporters: "She changed her position on ponies! ‪#‎WhichHillary‬ ‪#‎WitchHillary‬


    Debate Moderator: "Hillary, how do you feel when people say you lie about ponies?"

    US Uncut Headline: Congressional Inquiry into Clinton's Pony Lies.

    Twitter trending: ‪#‎ponygate‬

    Best reply:

    BernieBro bumper sticker:  Hillary Lied, Ponies Died.


    "BernieBro" is rapidly becoming (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    the obnoxious and overused "puma" of 2016.

    The fact is, there was always a gulf, an abyss between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters; the easy conflation of the two being primarily an intellectually lazy, passive aggressive way of venting spleen at Sanders by suggesting that his entire message and appeal is based in irrationalism and lacking in any substance.


    Then (4.33 / 6) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    again their philosophical underpinnings are very similar. They are both comprised of enthusiastic, antiestablishment revolutionaries(counter revolutionaries for Trump?). Both groups put some level of blind faith in one man to lead them to some promised land, when neither of them are providing a clear roadmap of how to get there.They even have some of the same sworn enemies, free trade pacts for one.

    Both of their messages eventually boil down to "you guys are getting screwed and I'm the guy to fix it. While the tone and substance of the messages are wildly different and the ears they fall upon are mostly from very different demographic and social groups, they are all hearing that same basic theme.    


    Boy are you askin for it (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:05:58 PM EST
    You are right of course

    Very true (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:23:41 PM EST

    Well these unthinking (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:32:12 PM EST
    feeding-on-raw-emotion "ears" must be  discerning some significant differences between the two, or they'd all be pledging to vote for Trump in a race between him and Hillary, and it seems that they're not.

    I doubt the emotional/psycholical component is any more a significant driving factor amongst Sanders supporters than it is among Clinton supporters.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:14:22 PM EST
    they believe their man is the only one who can lead them, while neither has a clear path to their goals the first steps they are proposing are in totally different directions. Anyone, save for the most nihilistic Bernie supporters, should be able to see that Trumps path is more likely to lead to some dystopia rather than Bernie's promised utopia.

    I never made the argument that these movements are going in the same direction just that they are structurally alike.


    I Love it When You Insist... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    ... you know what people think and then proceed to use it in an argument against them.

    HRC's supporters sure are putting an undue burden on their candidate when she has to try and mend the bridges they have burned to the ground.  

    I don't know that it can be done.


    What bridges? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    When attacked with nonsense and pointing out that nonsense is now "burning bridges"?  Pointing out that governing is more than bumper sticker slogams is "burning bridges"?

    Such nonsense.  


    JB... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:04:34 PM EST
    ...did I say burning, for you it's been more like carpet bombing anything that isn't pro-HRC.

    You don't need to comment, we get it, HRC = good, everything else = the GD devil.


    Oh Scott (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    Bless your heart.

    No, everything HRC does isn't wonderful, but she's far from evil. And no, since I support her, it's not my responsibility to add a negative to everything I say in support.

    But we all know you don't like her because you FEEL it - it isn't based on massive policy issues..


    That is Actually True... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    ... not really, but on paper she is great and it's not like I am anti-HRC.  I just don't find her likable, it causes me pain to watch her speak, not much just enough to get me to change the channel.  

    But that isn't what drove what you perceived as pro-sanders postings.  IMO WS is a problem that needs to be one of the front issues, I think it needs serious house cleaning and I don't believe HRC is going to do much more than lip service.  

    I have said I will begrudgingly vote for her, and I did not vote for Sanders in the primary.

    I am not the only one who feels this way and I think she is going to have a real problem getting people to the polls in November.  That, as far as I can tell, is her only weakness in the general.  She will be a good president, but she isn't going to give WS the attention is deserves IMO.

    And whether you agree or not, you went after Sanders people with a flamer thrower.


    I am (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    not attacking or arguing against anybody, I am just remarking on the structure of the movements, I am actually impressed with their success. If you want to argue that Bernie's supporters are not enthusiastic, not anti-establishment and not revolutionaries go ahead and make that argument.

    I don't know if all of Bernie's supporters believe that he can deliver on his promises, but I expect many do. Frankly if I thought he could I would probably be supporting him.

    I do not see which bridges are being burned, it seems many Bernie supporters get all aflutter when normal, totally expected political jostling takes place.


    Actually I think (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    A lot of them don't think he can deliver.  I've been hearing a lot more "why not at least try?" than "only one man can implement single payer healthcare".

    For example.

    I prefer Hillary as a president, but I don't love the denigration of a large left-wing political movement.  Bernie won't win this time, but the overton window is shifting considerably on economic issues.  And IMO, it's about time.


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    the ultimate question, "why not even at least try?". To me there are many reasons to not try, IMO at this point in our history failure is not an option. Revolutions are dangerous things, to casually say "it will most likely will fail but what the hey" is a very perilous position.  

    My question (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    is are they okay with it being voted down? Say Bernie gets the legislation written and then it's voted down like you and I know it will be the way things stand right now would they be okay with that or do they think it actually might pass?

    So, "they" absolutely won't vote (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    if Fearless Leader isn't there to exhort them to and lead them to the polls by the nose?

    Actually... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    many believe there are two who were in a position to run who could lead us to a more promised economic land...Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  And that's just in a position to run, there are others outside of the Democratic Party who could lead us who are in no position to run because of the two-party system, and they're too smart and/or selfish to want the damn job.  

    On the flip, are you saying there are many who could lead the moderate pragmatic revolution (brought to you by Acme Corp.)?  When I've called Hillary a boiler-plate Dem I've been told how unique and special she is, not like those other bums.  


    There are no white knights in politics, kdog. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    kdog: "Actually[,] many believe there are two who were in a position to run who could lead us to a more promised economic land...Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. [...] On the flip, are you saying there are many who could lead the moderate pragmatic revolution (brought to you by Acme Corp.)?  When I've called Hillary a boiler-plate Dem I've been told how unique and special she is, not like those other bums."

    You're wasting your time looking for one in either Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- and Sen. Warren, at least, would likely not hesitate to tell you so. You really ought to start looking for the good in all of our candidates, rather than focus inordinately upon whatever you perceive Mrs. Clinton's faults to be. Otherwise, you risk revealing yourself to be nothing more than a boiler-plate cynic.



    A boilerplate cynic is someone (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    who doesn't believe any white knights exist anywhere.

    Someone who acknowledges that they don't exist in American politics is a realist.


    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:11:12 PM EST
    there was polling that was showing they would vote for Trump. Or at least some of them. So basically all that shows is that at least some of them are all hyped up on being part of a "revolution" than any particular issue.

    Don't bother (none / 0) (#55)
    by pitachips on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 10:32:46 PM EST
    The kool aid is very strong here.

    Well, no, not his (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    entire message. . . .

    As for the nomenclature, "bro" is nice, compared to what they call us Clinton supporters.


    AFAIAC (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:38:16 PM EST
    Greenwald burned his last shred of credibility with his ranting about how "berniebros" was just a made up meme by bitter Hillary supporters.

    And you burned yours by (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    promulgating the Sanders is Trump meme.

    Pffft (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:04:31 PM EST
    I have never said any such thing

    Oh, not at all (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    how could I ever think such a thing.

    Look (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    You can hyperventilate all you want but that's pure BS.   You should show me where I said that or just stop,

    And another thing.. (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    What historic precedents in American history are there for the progressive left EVER throwing their support behind someone like Trump?

    Yes (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:07:34 PM EST
    Historic presidents have ruled this year.

    So That is a No ? (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    It an observation that this

    What historic precedents in American history are there

    Is, in light of what we have so far seen,  is an absurd way to start a question about what happens next.


    What happens next is that Trump (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    gets slaughtered in November and the person who many predicted would be the next president six years ago is elected.

    You probably need to tell this (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    To the democrats crossing over to vote for Trump in Ohio saying things like "I have never voted for a republican in my life"

    That said I am hopeful that's exactly what happens.


    I'm wondering if they ever voted in their lives (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    and then there's the disgruntled crotchety futzers who can't remember ever voting in their lives..

    Of course you are (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    It was mentioned they are (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    Crossing over at 7 times the average rate.  Their voting history may not be that important to the result.

    They did talk to a person who crossed over to vote for Kasich.
    You probably think they never voted before either, right?


    Talk to me about in November (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    Do you have any numbers on the Republicans who are crossing over?

    So You Can Say Every Ridiculous Thing... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    ...that pops into your head.

    Explains so much.


    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    You would know about that.

    Learning From the Best (none / 0) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    Didn't berniebro start with the bros (none / 0) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    Themselves?  It only became a "bad" name through repeated manifestation of problematic behavior of some Bernie supporters themselves.

    I read that, yes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    . . . when they picked up on the meme of "bros vs. hos;" remember that lovely line from 2008?

    But KeysDan doesn't think that they came up with it for themselves, from his rating, so he may have more backstory on this.


    problematic behavior (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    like having the unmitigated gall to support Sanders.

    Not as recent as you think (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 07:45:14 AM EST
    Even today (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 07:58:35 AM EST
    In the NYT Magazine

    Are you a young or youngish man who prefers the company of other men? Platonically, platonically. (For the most part.) Are you currently wearing -- or have you ever worn -- baggy shorts? A baseball cap? A polo shirt? White sneakers? Sunglasses on your head? All at the same time? Are you white? And these other men whose company you enjoy, do you guys drink and watch sports together? Are they white, too? Have you been to see Mumford and Sons with them? What about Diplo? Or A$AP Rocky? If the New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski announced that he was having a three-day party on a cruise ship, would you go?

    Answering yes to even some of this -- Are you a youngish man? -- might make you a bro. And I'm sad for you. You didn't ask for this. Or maybe you did. Maybe you use the word ``bro'' as a form of address. As in: ``Hey, bro.'' Or: ``I can't tonight, bro.'' Or: ``Derivatives are off the chain right now, bro.'' So you at least know of the concept of ``the bro'' and that a culture -- of excessive devotion, of ``bros before hos,'' of springbreak4ever -- exists around your lifestyle.

    But we're not talking about you, bro. Not right now. Now we're talking about the sort of bro who instigates the hijacking of Hillary Clinton's official Facebook page; who harasses women who endorse Clinton; who tells black Americans whom he thinks it's in their best interest to support. Yeah, we're talking about the Berniebro. I know: him, that Bernie Sanders supporter so badly feeling the Bern that he communicates in condescension and flames.

    Indeed, ``Berniebro,'' a term fancifully coined by Robinson Meyer in The Atlantic, became a catchall for a certain kind of dog-whistling, sexist proselytizing on Sanders's behalf, sometimes from his own staff. Jeff Weaver, Sanders's campaign manager, could have been auditioning for ``Veep'' when, last October, he said jokingly of Clinton to John Heilemann of Bloomberg Politics that ``we're willing to consider her for vice president. We'll give her serious consideration. We'll even interview her.'' Weaver's willingness ``to consider her'' was of a piece with a commentariat that is comfortable accusing Clinton and her supporters of a vulgar identity politics -- or misogyny, even -- for discussing Clinton's sex in the context of the presidency.

    The deployment of ``bro'' as a means of disparagement is part of a generalized expression of fatigue with the wielding of white-male power, a feeling that has emboldened Clinton supporters. We're no longer talking about the classic bro. We're talking about trolls and, in lieu of a less printable word, jerks.

    Ehhh (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by smott on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    I find this snark just as irritating and insulting as the PUMA stuff.

    All it will do is piss off said Bros as the same thing in 2008 pissed off said  Hos, and we remain in our circular firing squad.

    When we were young we were like this. White middle class males will be particularly aggressive and entitled (as opposed to PUMAs who seemed more older and weary) but it is what it is.

    Shooting at each other is stupid.


    "I want to thank everyone who voted for me, and apologize to everyone else for making your Facebook feeds so, so annoying. I mean, I love my supporters, but they're too much, right? I'm great, but I'm not five posts a day great! With all due respect to my supporters -- get a life!"



    it's not a lack of caring about issues (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    necessarily - it's that they only care about one issue - money/income.  And Trump is a protectionist, who pretended to care about healthcare, and isn't "beholden to special financial interests".

    Honestly, I never really thought the crossover would last, and it seems like it's not lasting.  Trump releasing a "health care plan" was one of the first nails in the coffin because it put to rest the idea that he supported single payer (yes, that really was going around).

    All that being said I think most of these people don't care about social issues as much because they feel like they don't have to, as if the problems there are "solved".  And a lot of white broke millennials who don't see "social problems" might even resent things like affirmative action, for example.  But when you have racism shoved in your face like this it becomes a lot harder to ignore, and they certainly don't like to think of themselves as racist.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    I was just thinking about the Pew polling and the fact that it said this particular group won't even listen to what you have to say if you're against gay marriage. However I do think that largely they don't think things like being pro-choice are important and take a lot of things for granted. They don't think electing a woman is important because it will happen "one day". Well, for those of us who are older have waited 30 years or even longer for that "one day". Look at your own state. How long was it before you actually elected a woman to the senate? I'm not sure I will see a woman senator from GA in my lifetime but I'm sure hoping the other states will help us out with electing a woman president.

    yea I guess what I mean is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    I think a lot of people take social issues for granted.  Like even with gay marriage - they don't see someone like Trump as a threat to that, because it's "settled", and he doesn't really talk about it much.

    I know a lot of it isn't settled, and the pushback on choice and voting rights is just one example of it.

    The reality is none of these social issues are "settled", and I think the rhetoric and violence surrounding the Trump rallies is waking some millennials up to this fact.  Because again, they don't like to actually think of themselves as racist or sexist, they just like to tell themselves that these problems are more or less solved, and we don't have to worry about them anymore.

    And yes, the woman-as-president thing has no legs.  Which is one manifestation of this.


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    there is complacency built into the millennials on the social issues, perhaps the relatively swift and sure victory for LGBT rights demarcated by  Obergefell made them think it was easy and permanent.

    On the other hand  most of them face a bleak economic future, they have watched their parents tread water or go backward, they will graduate college with crushing debt or have diminished hopes of finding permanent well paying blue collar jobs.

    That is why Bernie's message resonates with that cohort. Another strange twist in this campaign season, the golden oldie "It's all about the economy, stupid" has become a hit with the kids.


    A colleague (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    Whom I often finds has keen insight into a variety of topics (and is a little older than a millenial himself) posited that the millenilal generation is the first generation where so much instant gratification is the norm.  Want food?  Order online or via app   Don't want to grocery shop?  There's an app for that.  Want to Christmas shop?  Go to Amazon and in some places,  get same day delivery. Want the latest hits or wanna see the latest shows?  Download on iTunes or watch Netflix.  Need to get a hold of someone?   Text, tweet, or IM them.

    So, when a politician comes along and promises something like free college!   And free healthcare! it's very appealing. Many of them don't bother to look at the details or understand that to achieve those goals will require lots of time and energy (and compromise).  And as every generation of young voters before them did, they are much more cavalier about the costs of programs that are important to them.  They aren't necessarily wrong in their desires, but it's certainly easier to say "impose more taxes" when you don't have a job, or you are at the beginning of your career and don't have a high income, nor responsibilites like a home, cars, kids (and yes, IN ADDITION to student loans).

    A little bit of age tends to give most people a little bit of pragmatism.


    Bit of irony (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by pitachips on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    That Sanders supporters are accused of repeating right wing talking points, but the entire 2nd paragraph reads as though it is a run of the mill GOP attack ad.

    Btw, The cost of the free college for all amounts to approx 75 billion annually. Literally pennies when considering a 4 trillion dollar budget. For a generation of students that are literally drowning indebt, to the point that they will be paying back student loams as long as their mortgage - its actually pretty sad to see the contempt that some show to them on this issue.


    Oh, you mean (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    this college plan?

    I wrote last week that Bernie Sanders's campaign had changed my mind and convinced me that he is right to set tuition-free college at public universities as the goal for higher education policy.

    But I also noted that I wasn't sold on the implementation details of his plan, and that in my experience Sanders enthusiasts were not especially aware of the content of his plan.

    Big-picture principles are important, but implementation is important too. It's worth reading Sanders's actual plan, since not only is there a lot of nitpicking one could do but there's also an enormous glaring flaw. It pretty clearly wouldn't achieve its goal of making the United States a country where students pay zero tuition to attend public colleges.

    This matters because it's not so much a design flaw as a concession to some practical realities that Sanders doesn't admit to on the campaign trail -- realities that his supporters would be well-advised to pay more attention to.

    So even if the idea of free college is exciting, there are a lot of reasons to doubt it would ever happen.

    Sanders's own summary of his College for All Act makes it pretty clear that the act would not, in practice, eliminate college tuition. What it would do instead is offer federal matching funds on a 2-to-1 basis to states that want to increase higher education spending in order to eliminate tuition:

    This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.

    Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.

    To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.

    On top of instant gratification (none / 0) (#48)
    by Valhalla on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:54:17 PM EST
    is the incredible amount of customization and personalization that pervades the everyday.  It is not just what you want as soon as you want it, but you can get it exactly the way you want it.  Any color, shape, size.  And it's just about your wants and needs -- your own phone, your own tablet, your own fb page, etc.  You never have to fight over the tv, for instance, like my agers did when we were kids.  That sounds stupid but there's many fewer opportunities to learn to share and compromise and work together with others towards goals.   It's not surprising that younger people, who've not had to learn that type of thing, don't see any problem with Bernie's my way or the high way approach.

    FlJoe: "I think there is complacency built into the millennials on the social issues, perhaps the relatively swift and sure victory for LGBT rights demarcated by  Obergefell made them think it was easy and permanent."

    ... marriage equality was first joined in the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin, many millenials were still in grade school. With rare exceptions, they also never saw first-hand the anti-gay hysteria which enveloped our country during the late 1980s and early '90s with the advent of the HIV/AIDS crisis.

    It's not their fault that they're still not quite old enough to have developed the sense of historical perspective which comes with age. Most of us were likely the same when we were in our 20s and early 30s -- and I certainly don't exempt myself, who was a history major!

    And in that regard, it's not unlike those here who are currently in their 40s and were still teenagers in 1989-91, when the Berlin Wall fell and then the Soviet Union quickly disintegrated. They didn't live with the Cold War hanging over their heads for 30 to 40 years, and weren't old enough to have experienced the domestic trauma caused by the Vietnam War. So, it wasn't surprising that many failed to grasp at the time why these two iconic events were such big deals for their parents and grandparents.



    Bernie supporters were never Trump (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    supporters. Trump's voter increases are coming from "Reagan Democrats," independents and others who have never voted.

    I'm not talking about Trump's base (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    I'm talking about the divide in the Democratic party right now and younger voters.

    A lot of them were considering Trump as a plan B.  I am saying that the current rhetoric and violence is, it seems, stemming that issue, and bringing them back into the fold so to speak.

    I'm not talking about people who are supporting Trump in the primary, I'm talking about people who might have supported him in the general due to dissatisfaction with the Democratic party.


    What kind of reliable data exists (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    that shows that a lot of "them" are or were ever seriously "considering Trump as plan B"?

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    It's probably just a loud minority but it's certainly not hard to find.

    You're right (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    I don't think anyone thinks the mayhem helps in a general.  I would say the big question is if he will ever be able to pivot away from it.   He will try.  Given the resistance to Hillary from younger voters he would be stupid not to try to go after them.  And he is not stupid.  There are lots of things he could do to do that.  And he would not be bound by republican orthodoxy.

    For example, you might remember when I asked kdog about pot decriminalization.   I could easily see him making an argument for this in a general.  It's just an example.

    It's a long time to November and memories are not that long.

    This numbers are very encouraging but it's early for champagne.


    Since Trump appears not to have -- or not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:29:23 PM EST
    to be basing his campaign on, at least -- any actual principles, there is no telling how he would behave, or what he would say, in the general election campaign. It could be totally different from what we are seeing now. And in that event, he would be shamelessly indifferent to explaining why his statements or behavior had totally changed. From this, I conclude that we cannot predict anything.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    Bingo. Absolutely.  There is literally no predicting what he would do.   I was reading something the other day where they were talking to a long time friend of Donalds.

    He said something like, I only know one thing, he hates to lose and he will do absolutely anything to win.

    I fine that easy to believe


    Welll put, Peter. And that is (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    the problem with a Trump presidency, too.

    That is not a roller coaster that I want to ride.


    Trump is a real estate developer, a promoter (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    of fantasy.  Buy this; spend that.  You are what you own.  Everything's fantastic with Trump.  He's materialism reified.

    And the suckers are lined up around the block.


    he's not trying (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    to pivot from the mayhem yet though.   He just threatened to protest Bernie's rallies and called him a commie.

    He's still escalating the mayhem.  I don't think that part will improve before November, if anything, when he's the actual nominee it will get louder and worse.  Not necessarily because of anything he'll actively be doing at that point, but because of the nature of his supporters and the nature of the opposition.

    I don't think the David Duke's of the world are going to sit tight and play nice once he's the nominee.  And I also don't think the BLM or other counter-protesters will either.


    Very true (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    But I saw a bit of a town hall thing this morning in which he reacted very differently to a disrupted.   No screaming "get him out".  He just sat there quietly and waited till they were expelled.

    Now, this might have been a one off.  I haven't been paying attention today after that.


    I also really do think (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    It's worth wondering just how many of those Bernie supporters demonstrating against him would become Trump supporters if he, for example, just came out for decriminalization.

    And how many (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    of his current supporters would he lose over that issue? Or how much would the 1/3 of Republicans that won't vote for him will increase? For everything like that while there might be a positive there also could be a negative.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 06:38:58 PM EST
    Supreme Court

    Donald is just saying what he needs to win.

    Plus I don't think many people care about it that much any more.  Plenty of republicans are sick of the drug war.  There is the whole Paul contingent.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    but it's an unknown as to whether those are his voters or somebody else's voters. Yeah, but Paul voters don't seem to amount to much in the GOP. Trump might already have those voters. Who knows at this point.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    While I doubt he will much if any of his support over that issue he will surely drive some of the "hold your nose" Republicans to stay home, running to the left of Hillary might even make a sizable number of them jump to her.

    Nonsense. He'll do the same thing (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 08:34:35 AM EST
    every other pol in this race has done.  He'll sell different fantasies to different suckers.  He's so good he can do it while they're sitting in the same damned audience, side by side, inches apart.

    He (none / 0) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    would definitely get the Jeff Spicoli vote,  but I think Cheech and Chong are out of the question.

    I have absolutely no idea (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    If he would ever even consider such a thing but it's my opinion that you both seriously underestimate the number of people it might energize.

    I don't know if you saw it but I got kdog to admit he would consider voting for Trumo and not admitting it.

    Ok that's not exactly what he said but it was something like that.


    Nobody (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    knows how many people it would be. And they would basically have to be single issue voters willing to give up a lot for that one thing which Kdog obviously is one of them.

    meh (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 09:17:29 AM EST
    it's different now than it used to be, IMO.  Why vote for Trump when you can just move to Colorado., etc...  It's coming up in other places too.  The tide is turning, presidential help isn't really necessary beyond rescheduling, which, I believe, Hillary has indicated a willingness to try.

    Legalization is happening one way or the other.  No need to sell your soul for it.


    I guessing here (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    But I suspect you do not regularly smoke pot.

    Which is not a criticism (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    If true but simply that IMO unless yu d you have no idea how important the issue s to those who do.   Most people can't just "move to Colorado"

    I was kind of joking about Colorado (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    It's not just that state anymore.  But like I said in my other post, I'm probably biased because of what it's like here in MA now.

    hah! (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    I will say that it's about to be legal in MA, and I'm not really worried about the Feds.  It's possible that living here is skewing that perspective compared to someone living in a state where it's not about to be legal.  Especially since it's decriminalized already and been legalized for medical purposes.

    It makes (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    A yooouge difference.

    Even Jim knows this (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    or should I say, is intellectually honest enough to admit this.

    The people who most likely will go over to Trump are the "Reagan Democrats", i.e., Democrats with faulty memories, who felt all warm inside when Hillary praised the Reagans for all their work against AIDS.


    Ronald Reagan's been gone from the scene ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    ... for 28 years now, and dead for 12 of them. Whatever "Reagan Democrats" there were have long since set up shop in the GOP. Back in the olden days, most of them were called "Dixiecrats," and counted amongst their numbers men of such sterling and noble character as Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm and Trent Lott.

    Bernie responds (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    Site Violator (none / 0) (#101)
    by Nemi on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 06:47:47 AM EST