I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.
Yes, ultimately we will see if Biden’s strategy works.
That said, Clinton and Obama are hardly the only politicians who preferred the “appeal to independents strategy” over “get the lefties to vote strategy”. Democrats won many difficult statewide elections using the former strategy, most recently the Kentucky governor, the Georgia Senate, and the Arizona Senate races.
Meanwhile, the most prominent statewide/national politicians using the latter strategy were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren won, but Massachusetts should not be a difficult election for Democrats to win. Whereas Sanders has shown that relying on lefty support won’t even win a national primary (and I consider “the 2016/2020 DNC primaries were rigged” as unpersuasive as “the 2020 presidential election was rigged”).
I was talking about presidential races too. Then you said Obama and Clinton don’t count for some reason.
Does the 2020 election count? Or the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years, relying more on winning the EC without actually having the most votes?
Because all of those things are evidence that the national Dem strategy is a good one. Time and again, liberals + independents > 50% of the vote.
And I have also volunteered for the DNC in multiple elections. Starting with Dukakis, in fact (even though I supported Paul Simon in the primary). But I still don’t expect them to “give” me a primary win. Wins have to be earned.
Finally, the DNC doesn’t hate you. They agree with many of your goals and want you to be part of their coalition. But being in a coalition means you don’t get everything you want, or even most of what you want. You get some of what you want, like everyone else. That’s not being “forgiving”, that’s being a realistic team player.
deleted by creator
I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
deleted by creator
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.
deleted by creator
Yes, ultimately we will see if Biden’s strategy works.
That said, Clinton and Obama are hardly the only politicians who preferred the “appeal to independents strategy” over “get the lefties to vote strategy”. Democrats won many difficult statewide elections using the former strategy, most recently the Kentucky governor, the Georgia Senate, and the Arizona Senate races.
Meanwhile, the most prominent statewide/national politicians using the latter strategy were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren won, but Massachusetts should not be a difficult election for Democrats to win. Whereas Sanders has shown that relying on lefty support won’t even win a national primary (and I consider “the 2016/2020 DNC primaries were rigged” as unpersuasive as “the 2020 presidential election was rigged”).
deleted by creator
I was talking about presidential races too. Then you said Obama and Clinton don’t count for some reason.
Does the 2020 election count? Or the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years, relying more on winning the EC without actually having the most votes?
Because all of those things are evidence that the national Dem strategy is a good one. Time and again, liberals + independents > 50% of the vote.
And I have also volunteered for the DNC in multiple elections. Starting with Dukakis, in fact (even though I supported Paul Simon in the primary). But I still don’t expect them to “give” me a primary win. Wins have to be earned.
Finally, the DNC doesn’t hate you. They agree with many of your goals and want you to be part of their coalition. But being in a coalition means you don’t get everything you want, or even most of what you want. You get some of what you want, like everyone else. That’s not being “forgiving”, that’s being a realistic team player.
deleted by creator