Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 29, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 303

Generational politics for 2016

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
It's no secret that part of Obama's advantage in 2008 was the fact that McCain looked like somebody's grandpa, whereas Obama looked like a member of a more modern generation. But now, the party demographics have changed, and there are far more young faces on the right than the left.

For 2016, the Republicans are talking about running Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and others with generational appeal. Meanwhile, the Democrats only seem to have Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both if whom are figures of our parents' generation, not ours. But what better choices do you have? Elizabeth Warren? I would love for you guys to choose her and make 2016 a direct fight between socialism and liberty.

It seems like more and more, the radical party of the young and the bold is becoming the party of aging hippies trying to win the Cold War for the Soviets about 30 years too late. Where are the Democrat's future leaders?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Are you suggesting that Obama got chosen as president not once, but twice, just because he was younger than the opposition?
His policies, or those of his party, had nothing to do with it, just his age?
Do you think Americans are totally dumb and interested only in physical appearance as criteria for the biggest job in the world?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2013
Do you think Americans are totally dumb and interested only in physical appearance as criteria for the biggest job in the world?

Not only, but mostly. I mean, think about how much time the media spent talking about Obama's race.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
yes, the media is definitely stupid and somewhat evil. Popularism for the sake of advertising sales sucks.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013
"Young people" are the most unreliable, unmotivated voting bloc out there. They're fickle, fair-weather folks who as likely to come through on voting day as they are do stick around for a teenage pregnancy.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013
But not only young people discriminate based on age.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013
So?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013
So age discrimination happens in favor of young candidates no matter how many young people are voting.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013
Okay. But the "young" people in the Repubican party now are all well under the ages required to run for office. So it doesn't matter if there's a bunch of 20-somethings in the GOP.
Reply
:iconabcat:
AbCat Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013   Writer
You do know most young people don't vote, right?
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Interesting thoughts, but social issues are going to be a sticking point if the republicans keep clinging to them, as traditional republicans tend to favor positions that favor white straight male christian gun loving americans, a group that is no longer a significant majority. Still a majority but not enough to win with alone. On top of that, thanks to the internet, it's easier for people to research the financial policies of the republicans and take note that they tend to favor tax cuts to the rich and taxing the needy. While the rich may fund the politicians, they don't make up the majority of voters.

So to sum up, the republicans need to do some major retooling...or really step up on their propaganda if they want to win. They're making the mistake of appealing to financial liberty, which tends to favor the rich. But the younger generation votes they're looking for tend to be young 20-somethings that don't have a whole lot of money to worry about and would prefer social liberty.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
In case you hadn't noticed, most of the Republicans thinking about running in 2016 aren't at all "traditional Republicans."
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Well, I don't tend to follow Republicans except when they're fighting against stuff I'm for (i.e. equal-rights, gun-control, and excessive military spending) so please forgive my ignorance of the more civilized republicans. But they're going to have to do a very good job of proving that then. Stereotypes are a very hard thing to shake off.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Your problem is you're letting the radical views of a very small minority of the party (who are currently under siege from their own) color your views of everyone else in the party. Why don't you view the entire Democratic Party as represented by the "put those niggers in chains" Blue-Dog Democrats?
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Why? Because I have never even heard of them, probably because you just made them up. And considering this "small minority" tends to be the most prominent members, such as several of the presidential nominees that ran in your party last year.
Reply
:iconsexy-cowboy-predator:
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
They are not made up, though, I would suspect there is very few of them left, probably none in the national spotlight. Until recently, the South was a Democratic stronghold. Most (all?) of the states in that part of the country were run by die hard Democrats during reconstruction and the civil rights era. Only about 20 years ago did the Democratic party start to lose its standing in that region.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
By Jeff Greenfield

I’ve tried, really I have.

But I just can’t.

Every time I start to write about why Clinton, Biden, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Cuomo, O’Malley, Paul, Walker, Warren will or won’t run or will win or lose, reminders of the past begin to play in my mind. And I’m reminded of how often and how quickly rock-solid political certainties have crumbled.

Suppose, for example, you were looking at the political landscape in 1989, just after the Republicans won the White House for the third consecutive time. You would note that the GOP won every Southern state, all eight states in the interior West, four of the six New England states, and New Jersey, Illinois and California—each of them for the sixth consecutive presidential election. You’d observe that since 1964, the Republicans had won five of six presidential elections, losing only the post-Watergate contest of 1976. You’d echo the dominant piece of political wisdom: that the Republican Party had an “electoral lock” on the White House.

If someone had suggested back then that New Jersey, Illinois and California would each record Democratic landslides or near-landslides for the next six presidential elections, you’d have shaken your head at such obvious political ignorance.

Or suppose it was the morning after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio in part because social conservatives turned out to approve a ban on gay marriage—as did voters in all 13 states where the issue was on the ballot. Would you have dared assume that eight years later, voters in four states either sanctioned gay marriage or refused to prohibit it? Or that when President Barack Obama belatedly endorsed the idea, he was accused of changing his mind for political advantage?

Of course not. You’d have been asked, “What have you been smoking?” (That’s the same question you’d have been asked a few elections back if you’d predicted that voters would approve the use of recreational marijuana, which voters in two states did in November.)

Not so long ago, every election cycle would feature a hundred voices intoning, “No one has ever won the White House without first winning the New Hampshire primary.” Now a footnote is required: “except the last three presidents.”

Until last year, it was a political rule of near-scientific certainty: “No Republican has won the nomination without winning the South Carolina primary.” Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney laid that one to rest.
Until the 2000 election, religiosity told us almost nothing about political preferences. Since that election, it’s been one of the more reliable indicators: Regular churchgoers lean heavily Republican; less observant or secular voters lean heavily Democratic.

So just how confident can a prognosticator be in assuming that the demographics of the 2012 election are reliable guides to the future? If congressional Republicans really embrace immigration reform and if a Hispanic winds up on the GOP national ticket in 2016, can Democrats continue to rely on winning the Latino vote by a near 3-to-1 margin, as they did last November? For its part, can the Republican Party embrace a version of immigration reform that alienates a significant part of its base without risking defections, possibly in the form of a third party?

These questions pale in the face of those “unknown unknowns” that so often upend core political assumptions. After the LBJ-Goldwater campaign of 1964, last rites were being administered to the Republican Party. Within a year, the escalation of the Vietnam War, along with racial and generational conflict at home, had pulled the Democratic Party apart.

After the Republican capture of the Senate in 2002, and George W. Bush’s re-election as president two years later, Karl Rove argued that his party had been “rebranded” and was well on its way to becoming a more or less permanent majority, much as William McKinley had led Republicans to dominance a century earlier. Iraq, Katrina and a global financial meltdown took care of that prophecy.

So, much as I’d love to join my colleagues in confidently charting the future, history tells me this is a fool’s errand.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Australia. You promised. I feel... used.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Still finishing my graduate degree. Ask in 3 years.
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Pfft. Once you're done with grad school your brain will be freed up to think correctly about everything else and you won't want to move.
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Interesting that the minarchist is now equating the Republicans to "liberty".
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Some Republicans truly believe in liberty.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Only when it profits them.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Can you stop being a bigot even for a minute?
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Yes. A bigot is someone who who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. I don't hate conservatives. I'm just really really disappointed with them, and their parents.
Reply
:iconanobu:
Anobu Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Student General Artist
Both of you need to go outside more and stop worrying about politics. Lol.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
My state is in the negatives in temperature(in Fahrenheit too) outside and there's nothing on TV. This is all there is to do.
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Liberty, prohibition, militarism. All the same thing, I guess.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
...Not even close.
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I was being facetious. You claim the Republicans believe in liberty, but the truth is that they're prohibitionists that want to increase military spending.
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
You can't seriously find this interesting, can you? This guy was practically worshipping Paul Ryan as an Objectivist god during the election. Paul Ryan.
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
puddelbal Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
I took a break from DA, so it's been awhile since I've seen Schemer posting.
Reply
:iconhyenaworks:
Hyenaworks Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Rubio's your best bet if he gets comprehensive immigration reform through Congress.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
It also was a big deal that McCain is not to the right enough for conservative voters.

McCain is a moderate that sometimes tilts left on issues.

He may have an R next to his name, but his actions leave us TRUE conservatives a bit confused and untrusting.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
McCain? a moderate? That guy turned right more often then an idiot in a roundabout.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
B u l l s h i t!

Ask any Conservative.

Only the right knows when a so-called right-winger goes left.

You leftists are so far to the communist-left, anyone moderate looks right-leaning to you.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
When you're talking "you leftists" are you talking american leftists, or rest of the world leftest? Because american leftists are barely left. I mean, in America being a socialist is a career ender, and communists get burned at the stake. What Americans consider "extreme left" is really left-leaning center.

McCain was about as left as Bush was...which is ultimately why he was defeated since no one wanted to go through that again.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Once again... PURE B U L L S H I T.

McCain has always been more left of center than Bush.

It was a huge reason he didn't win.

Leave the categorizing to the adults, kid.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You only became voting age about 4 years ago and you're a lefty. Lefties aren't intellectually honest. Youth are stupid.

You are either full of shit or you believed someone full of shit that now you parrot, because your opinion is full of shit.

All you know is liberal internet babble, the irresponsible hack-journalism of MSNBC, and Jon Stewart.

You are completely void of understanding what a Rhino is compared to a Conservative, because you don't even know what a Conservative is.

Liberals are always the ones who think they are so intelligent, but they believe bullshit. Look how most of them have fallen for the man-made global warming hoax. It's easy to fool a lefty, they are emo-driven, no real logic.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
You think man-made global warming is a hoax? I suppose you also think we never landed on the moon, JFK was assassinated by the FBI, and that Lizard people are trying to create a one-world government. Have fun with your raging insanity.
Reply
:icondragonquestwes:
DragonQuestWes Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2013
Since *ZOKMAN blocked me from replying to him, I'm just going to respond here.

McCain has always been more left of center than Bush.

McCain a Socialist?

Wow. McCain 2016 then.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
I KNOW man-made global warming is a hoax.

The moon landing was real.

You silly idiots are still buying that crap that our SUVs are killing the planet?

I got news for you kid.

Even if there were a nuclear war, in time, the earth would take back everything and purify itself. You give way too much credit to the idiot human beings and no faith in the earth herself. Humans are not that strong yet. We are a flea upon the back of a big dog.

Just recent evidence leaked, has shown that scientists that promote the HOAX of man-made global warming are way off in their calculations.

Scientists are not God. They fuck up all the time. More mistakes and failures than successes, by far. For every scientist that says that man causes global warming, there is one that would disagree.

Put on your tinfoil hat and worship the earth, your religion is junk science, your prophets are people who use a lot of guessing and lies to get financial benefits and funding.

All false religions have some truth involved to capture the gullible. You seem to have been baptized into the belief. Face it kid.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
For every scientist that says that man causes global warming, there is one that would disagree.

Citation fucking needed. Because the stats I've heard are more along 97% of scientists who believe global warming is man-made. The other 3% are paid off by big oil.

Stop watching Fox News for a change and do some actual research boy.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconanamusingalias:
anamusingalias Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Were you sexually assaulted by a left hand when you were younger?
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
KIDS :roll:
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
KIDS :roll:
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
The Amish are communists.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Sorry to hear that. :roll:
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
I'm just providing an extreme example of how even radical left-wing policies and radical conservative/libertarian values are not mutually exclusive.

Personally I would consider myself a left-wing conservative, being an advocate of limited, decentralized government as well as cooperative-individualist and mutual economics.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
I can't believe you don't thing the Dems have anyone else.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Martin O'Malley. Elizabeth Warren. Supposedly Julian Castro. I think we got some whippersnappers in the bank.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013
Exactly.
Reply
Add a Comment: