Politics

[flyingember]

The platform was written this year.

$15 minimum wage is in the platform.

One thing doesn't prove your point

[bobbyhawks]

You said it moved left "this year" when most of that predates this year. The platform didn't suddenly embrace those items, many have been on the platform for multiple elections.

I think this is the way I've thought of things. If I may pluck 1992 out of obscurity for the sake of that previous chart, it is interesting to compare this year's party platform:
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-conten ... -lines.pdf
...to the one from 1992:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29610
They are surprisingly similar. Of note, 1992's platform included a "domestic GI bill" that would give college loans that can be repaid based on your income level or by national service. Personally, I don't see how the current platform is a dramatic shift considering 24 years have elapsed since the 1992 platform, and college tuition and fees have almost doubled in relation to inflation since 1992, forcing a lot of middle and lower income people to rethink going to college at all. The 2004 platform (halfway point) stated that "college tuitions rose by 35 percent between 2000 and 2003, and this year, 220,000 Americans were priced out of college by its high costs. We will make college affordable for every qualified student with a tax credit for four years of college." So, this year's "shift" to me is more of a "where we are today" than a movement of the party further to the left.

It looks like in earthling's chart, the percentage of the Dem/lean Dem for the millennial age range (18-34) has stayed about the same from 1992 to today, but it is difficult to say without making assumptions about the 30-49 age group. The 18-29 range has only increased by 2%, so I don't know that they would be having the driving impact on the platform that some say they do.

I think you're looking at the data wrong. It's a percentage of overall voters. While 18-29 year-old support for dems went from 18 to 20% of the total population, there is a smaller ratio of them voting overall, 19 to 16%.

Perhaps you can take another look, but if the chart says that 20% of the total voting population are Dems/lean Dems, then the chart would indicate that 100% of the voting population are Dems/lean Dems when you add in the other age groups. 20+32+29+19 = 100%. So, I'm pretty sure that is just a breakdown of the total people that are Dem/lean Dem rather than a depiction of what percentage of each age group is a Dem/lean Dem. All the chart tells you about 18-29 is that 16% of the total voting population are in this group (a decrease from 1992 of 3%) and that 20% of the total Dem/Lean Dem segment of the population are in this group. It doesn't say how many Dems/lean Dems there are in relation to the total population at all, so we can only infer how this might relate to the total increase in Dems/lean Dems over the last 24 years when compared to overall population growth (by using this chart).

[TheBigChuckbowski]

You said it moved left "this year" when most of that predates this year. The platform didn't suddenly embrace those items, many have been on the platform for multiple elections.

I think this is the way I've thought of things. If I may pluck 1992 out of obscurity for the sake of that previous chart, it is interesting to compare this year's party platform:
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-conten ... -lines.pdf
...to the one from 1992:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29610
They are surprisingly similar. Of note, 1992's platform included a "domestic GI bill" that would give college loans that can be repaid based on your income level or by national service. Personally, I don't see how the current platform is a dramatic shift considering 24 years have elapsed since the 1992 platform, and college tuition and fees have almost doubled in relation to inflation since 1992, forcing a lot of middle and lower income people to rethink going to college at all. The 2004 platform (halfway point) stated that "college tuitions rose by 35 percent between 2000 and 2003, and this year, 220,000 Americans were priced out of college by its high costs. We will make college affordable for every qualified student with a tax credit for four years of college." So, this year's "shift" to me is more of a "where we are today" than a movement of the party further to the left.

I mean, I don't find it surprising that the party's platform is similar considering it's the same party and there haven't been events like the Civil Rights movement that have shaken things up in the past 24 years. If it's just a reflection of "where we are today" then where we are today is further left than where we were 4 years ago. Many points moved left in the platform. Many stayed the same. Did any move right? Not that I know of.

Also, going from giving a tax credit for college to making it free for some and debt-free for all is moving left.

It looks like in earthling's chart, the percentage of the Dem/lean Dem for the millennial age range (18-34) has stayed about the same from 1992 to today, but it is difficult to say without making assumptions about the 30-49 age group. The 18-29 range has only increased by 2%, so I don't know that they would be having the driving impact on the platform that some say they do.

I think you're looking at the data wrong. It's a percentage of overall voters. While 18-29 year-old support for dems went from 18 to 20% of the total population, there is a smaller ratio of them voting overall, 19 to 16%.

Perhaps you can take another look, but if the chart says that 20% of the total voting population are Dems/lean Dems, then the chart would indicate that 100% of the voting population are Dems/lean Dems when you add in the other age groups. 20+32+29+19 = 100%. So, I'm pretty sure that is just a breakdown of the total people that are Dem/lean Dem rather than a depiction of what percentage of each age group is a Dem/lean Dem. All the chart tells you about 18-29 is that 16% of the total voting population are in this group (a decrease from 1992 of 3%) and that 20% of the total Dem/Lean Dem segment of the population are in this group. It doesn't say how many Dems/lean Dems there are in relation to the total population at all, so we can only infer how this might relate to the total increase in Dems/lean Dems over the last 24 years when compared to overall population growth (by using this chart).

I think we can agree that we can't make much from that chart and we both probably tried to infer too much from it.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The platform was written this year.

$15 minimum wage is in the platform.

One thing doesn't prove your point

I think you're trying to argue with a point that I'm not making.

The platform was written this year which is I used the words "this year". I wasn't saying that Democrats suddenly discovered leftist ideas in 2016.

[flyingember]

The platform was written this year.

$15 minimum wage is in the platform.

One thing doesn't prove your point

I think you're trying to argue with a point that I'm not making.

The platform was written this year which is I used the words "this year". I wasn't saying that Democrats suddenly discovered leftist ideas in 2016.

You said the Democrats moved more to the left this year.

They didn't. Their platform is as left as it was in the past.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

You said the Democrats moved more to the left this year.

"The platform moved dramatically left this year."

They didn't. Their platform is as left as it was in the past.

Disagree completely. Just because one person talked about a topic one time 5 years ago or local governments have passed laws doesn't mean those things were in the democratic platform before this year.

[bobbyhawks]

Also, going from giving a tax credit for college to making it free for some and debt-free for all is moving left

Perhaps if you treat tax credits differently than other forms of free money. I agree that this position can be seen as a move to the left for the platform, but it isn't "dramatic" or out of left field (no pun intended). The average cost of community college per year (tuition and fees) is $3,440, according to this site:
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay- ... costs-faqs
John Kerry's plan included a $4,000 tax credit and payment of the balance if you did not owe the full 4k in taxes. The debt-free goal involves what I see as some very conservative principles. It is actually a fiscal discipline measure in disguise since it would require stricter evaluation of how public universities spend money and the gaining of efficiencies through increase in availability of college credit through high school.

I'll buy that the Democratic platform has moved left, but definitely not dramatically. Also, if you account for the move to the right during the Bush years, I'm not sure there is an overall net move worth noting.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Also, going from giving a tax credit for college to making it free for some and debt-free for all is moving left

Perhaps if you treat tax credits differently than other forms of free money. I agree that this position can be seen as a move to the left for the platform, but it isn't "dramatic" or out of left field (no pun intended). The average cost of community college per year (tuition and fees) is $3,440, according to this site:
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay- ... costs-faqs
John Kerry's plan included a $4,000 tax credit and payment of the balance if you did not owe the full 4k in taxes. The debt-free goal involves what I see as some very conservative principles. It is actually a fiscal discipline measure in disguise since it would require stricter evaluation of how public universities spend money and the gaining of efficiencies through increase in availability of college credit through high school.

It's not just community college, though, it's free for low-income families at state schools as well.

I'll buy that the Democratic platform has moved left, but definitely not dramatically. Also, if you account for the move to the right during the Bush years, I'm not sure there is an overall net move worth noting.

My point was never about what the platform was 20 years ago. I was simply saying that it undoubtedly moved left this year compared to 2012. The reasons for that move can be debated but the millennial support for Bernie Sanders played a major role in that IMO. And, I think it is dramatic, just because it hasn't gone full commy doesn't mean it hasn't taken a big step left. Pretty much every change to the platform was a move left and I'm unaware of any moves right.

[phuqueue]

Why should the ostensibly "left" wing party move to the right?

[grovester]

Particularly after 2 Obama terms and a fraud for the GOP presidential candidate.

[flyingember]

Why should the ostensibly "left" wing party move to the right?

The country isn't left vs right, there's some percentage of districts which are going to have people that vote based on the person and the things they say and are looking for the closest fit. This is the idea of swing states.

Let's say they lose certain house districts and senate seats they thought were easy wins. If they could win them in the future by softening certain stances they should. Because it's not useful in politics to demand your exact way on everything and lose elections and get nothing you want passed.

The party stance on gun control has gone back and forth over the years to varying degrees as one example.

This year they should not move left because the right wing parties are fielding weak candidates and we can see it in the platform. After that, apparently it's normal for the party in power to lose some house seats in midterm elections. So the party platform should move to the right to lessen this.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Do you think this country could accommodate three national parties? What could happen is the Democratic party moves more to the left. The Republican party shed it's right wing and become more of a middle or moderate party by absorbing some Democrats not wanting to take such a turn to the left. The right wing of the GOP becomes a Nationalist party

[grovester]

Both parties have moved to the right since the 1980s. The ACA used to be a Nixon plan and the GOP nominated a fascist this year.

There is no where else to go but left, and the GOP will have to go quite a ways to attract enough support to make up for the loss of their wingnuts.

[earthling]

Nominating a schoolyard bully who treats women like objects, wants to isolate (build a wall), establish one national religion and avoid taxes isn't exactly heading GOP to the left. They are mildly more 'tolerant' of gays than 30 years ago but tolerance isn't acceptance.

Millennials are the the most diverse group ever, more accepting towards others unlike themselves than ever, less nationalistic, less politically religious (theocratic) and the largest demographic ever. They won't impact GOP largely just yet until more start to become politically involved/interested, which may not hit a larger scale until most hit maybe mid 30s+. However the trend lately is establishment vs outsiders and if that holds for another decade+, will be interesting to see who GOP represent when more Millennials have more political interest. If GOP doesn't modernize, they are screwed - they'll have to adapt to a new kind of base or will die (or another party overtakes GOP). If anything, GOP could survive maintaining a financially conservative platform but social conservatives/nationalists will otherwise kill them.

BTW, trends of American nationalism appears to be heading down and especially lowest with Millennials compared to 20 somethings 15 years ago...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/193379/new-l ... icans.aspx

[FangKC]

In many ways the politics of the future will shift to the extent that it will be urban versus rural.

I grew up in a small rural town, but have spent most of my life living in large urban centers. I will tell you politically I see the sharpest divide between people living in cities and people living in rural areas. When you live in a small town where everyone is like you, it results in a much different political bent than people living in cities and interacting with others that are completely different than you.

When I spend time with my rural family, I spend a lot of time biting my tongue. I get where they are coming from, but my life experience is so vastly different than theirs, and we grew up the same way.

The thing I've noticed over the last few years is that their worldview is so much more fear-based than my own. In many ways, my observation is that they want to be frozen in time. It takes them much longer to accept any change.

[earthling]

^Yeah and gerrymandering of rural/small town America in most states will help GOP maintain power in the House much longer than what is representative of general population.

While GOP currently tends to have most of the suburban vote, white suburban Millennials grew up much more exposed to others unlike themselves than suburban white kids 30+ years ago. Millennials are more socially liberal than ever, the most racially diverse group ever and suburbs are becoming less white. GOP is at risk of losing the suburbs and rural America is shrinking. But I suspect it won't hit GOP hard until most Millennials hit 35+ as they become more politically interested.

[flyingember]

^Yeah and gerrymandering of rural/small town America in most states will help GOP maintain power in the House much longer than what is representative of general population.

While GOP currently tends to have most of the suburban vote, white suburban Millennials grew up much more exposed to others unlike themselves than suburban white kids 30+ years ago. Millennials are more socially liberal than ever, the most racially diverse group ever and suburbs are becoming less white. GOP is at risk of losing the suburbs and rural America is shrinking. But I suspect it won't hit GOP hard until most Millennials hit 35+ as they become more politically interested.

Millennials are the group born roughly 1980 to 2000.

So the oldest millennials just hit 35. So you're basically arguing this is the first a series of declines for republicans

[earthling]

Right, when _most_ Millennials are over 35.

So far just a handful are hitting it. I'm not 'arguing' it, just noting that is what GOP has to contend with if staying with same course. 20-somethings in any era tend to not be as politically interested as 35+ so they will become more involved/interested over next 10+ years and represent a much larger portion of voting base, especially as older GOP majority die off. Of course some Millennials will become relatively more conservative over time but so far it looks like they are the least socially conservative ever and they are the largest demographic ever. And they are the least white demographic ever, least conducive to the hard right idealogy, as well as apparently the least religious ever, especially less politically religious as the hard right is.

And it's hard to say what next generation will look like but the trend appears to be more left leaning than right leaning in the instant Information Age and continuing increase in diversity.

[beautyfromashes]

Millennials are the the most diverse group ever, more accepting towards others unlike themselves than ever.

I don't find this to be the case at all. Millennials seem more anti-religion, anti-capitalism and anti-individual liberties of any generation the country has ever seen. They're tolorant as long as thoughts are within a band of acceptable options. It's funny because they encourage breaking of traditional taboos but are creating new taboos on the other side. I guess any solving of societal out of balance always has the possibility of swinging too far the opposite direction.