The new Democratic Party... party of the Young, no longer party of the Old

[Blue3]

I found this a really insightful article, and I think it rings true...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/a-new-budget-for-a-new-party-20130411

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are your thoughts on this article, and on this trend in the Democratic Party (if you believe it)?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Anyone who believes that the debt is an immediate problem is an idiot. This includes the neoliberal appeaser-in-chief. He could have challenged the New Democratic trend; instead, he embraced it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

That article is vile on many levels.

[Mehmentum]

This actually makes a whole lot of sense. 

Democrats have almost no electoral incentive to defend social security.  Seniors don't vote democratic even when Democrats have been defending programs like medicare and social security from the Republicans.   



   

[All Along The Watchtower]

This actually makes a whole lot of sense.  

Democrats have almost no electoral incentive to defend social security.  Seniors don't vote democratic even when Democrats have been defending programs like medicare and social security from the Republicans.    



  

Yeah,   f-Inks old people.

[Blue3]

Anyone who believes that the debt is an immediate problem is an idiot. This includes the neoliberal appeaser-in-chief. He could have challenged the New Democratic trend; instead, he embraced it.

The sustainability of Medicare is an immediate problem... we have about 10 years to fix it.

That article is vile on many levels.

Why?

This actually makes a whole lot of sense. 

Democrats have almost no electoral incentive to defend social security.  Seniors don't vote democratic even when Democrats have been defending programs like medicare and social security from the Republicans.   

Yeah,   f-Inks old people.

Old people will really be screwed if Medicare goes bankrupt.

So let's make the changes to entitlements now, so it exists for future generations.

Sure, some old people (and many of the far-left) will be unhappy about it, but the old are no longer the Democrats' base.

It's not about screwing old people, it's about making realistic choices that are now politically possible for the Democrats.

Do you disagree that we should be investing much more than current levels in young people, and the future? We don't have unlimited resources, we must prioritize. Right now, young people are getting the shaft. Now the Democrats are the party of the young. How does this not make both pragmatic and political sense?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

fixed

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/08/Chained-CPI-Could-Raise-Taxes-on-Lower-Middle-Class.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/the-growing-burden-of-payroll-taxes/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mehmentum]

Disagreements over policy do not mean we kick people out of the party, thats what the GOP does.

[Del Tachi]

The next Democratic coalition is here, and it is the predominant feature of the contemporary American landscape.  The next few decades are going to be very difficult for the Republicans, a la the 1930s tnrough 1960s.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The next Democratic coalition is here, and it is the predominant feature of the contemporary American landscape.  The next few decades are going to be very difficult for the Republicans, a la the 1930s tnrough 1960s.

Oh, relax. Obama only won 51-47 against an inept plutocrat of an opponent. 2016 is anyone's game so far, and if a Democrat wins in 2016 chances are you'll come back in 2020.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd like to think political parties would be based on ideas (in the Democrat's case, strengthening the Welfare State) rather than on constituencies. However, I know this has never been the case in America.

[Mehmentum]

Another good article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/14/democrats-need-to-stop-attacking-obama-s-budget-and-wake-up-to-reality.html

[Marokai Backbeat]

That article is vile on many levels.

[tarheel-leftist85]

yah, brah! gaiii marriage is totes a fair trade for social security.  we have to cut it to save it, brah.  and a nominal tax increase on the wealthy is "shared" - everyone's gonna sacrifice, brah!  but let's fire up the printing press for more productive ends, like servicing our bankster brahs and humanitarian drones all over the place and insurance company blank check subsidies!  win the future!  public-private "partnerships"!

saw this coming 10 years ago...

[Skill and Chance]

It will be interesting to see if this accelerates some of the recent state/regional trends.  Particularly if there is a fight over farm aid, I wonder if we will eventually see rural areas in general get as R as cities are now D?

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

The next Democratic coalition is here, and it is the predominant feature of the contemporary American landscape.  The next few decades are going to be very difficult for the Republicans, a la the 1930s tnrough 1960s.

Oh, relax. Obama only won 51-47 against an inept plutocrat of an opponent. 2016 is anyone's game so far, and if a Democrat wins in 2016 chances are you'll come back in 2020.

I agree completely.  Especially if the GOP nominates Christie and the Dems pick anyone other than Hilary.

[DS0816]

I think what's going in the two-party system is they're bought.

We get to have our fun, with respect to the purpose and function of this site, but all this topic breaks down to is more of Team Red vs. Team Blue.

I agree, with presidential races, advantage goes to Team Blue. With the House, though, advantage goes to Team Red. I haven't seen any sweeping political change from the 44th president which suggests he and Democrats can win the smaller populations in numerous states which routinely color red. Why not? Because they're not putting for any such effort. Social security, medicare, matters such as ecomonic, national security, and military have an impact across the board and isn't limited to the people of only certain areas geographically in the U.S.

I think the fun I've had here on prior occasions was all for nothing. More of the same will be had in presidential elections where a winning candidate carries no more than, say, 3-to-2 of available states in this country. (I miss those 40-state landslides which yielded well past 400 electoral votes in utter blowouts!)

These are the red states.

These are the blue states.

And now it's time for the purple states of the United States to tell us who will be the next, or whether the incumbent will be re-elected as, president of the United States.

Hello, Ohio. Hello, Florida. Hello, Virginia. Hello, Colorado. Hello, three to five other "swing states." And … Hello, to all the rest of you so-whats!

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans have nothing to offer the young adults but heavy debt as a price for joining or staying in the occupationally-defined middle class, low wages for working people, harsh management, wars for profit, pseudoscience, fundamentalist religion, and sexual repression. Note well that those young adults who have been instrumental in the Obama campaign have learned their political lessons well from a masterful pol, and that many will start political careers. Most will be liberals. The Republicans have nothing like that. Obama supporters who start political careers have the prospect of being the core support of the Democratic Party and form the coalition analogous to the New Deal coalition powerful in American politics until the 1980s.

 

[LastVoter]

Anyone who believes that the debt is an immediate problem is an idiot. This includes the neoliberal appeaser-in-chief. He could have challenged the New Democratic trend; instead, he embraced it.

The sustainability of Medicare is an immediate problem... we have about 10 years to fix it.

That article is vile on many levels.

Why?

This actually makes a whole lot of sense. 

Democrats have almost no electoral incentive to defend social security.  Seniors don't vote democratic even when Democrats have been defending programs like medicare and social security from the Republicans.   

Yeah,   f-Inks old people.

Old people will really be screwed if Medicare goes bankrupt.

So let's make the changes to entitlements now, so it exists for future generations.

Sure, some old people (and many of the far-left) will be unhappy about it, but the old are no longer the Democrats' base.

It's not about screwing old people, it's about making realistic choices that are now politically possible for the Democrats.

Do you disagree that we should be investing much more than current levels in young people, and the future? We don't have unlimited resources, we must prioritize. Right now, young people are getting the shaft. Now the Democrats are the party of the young. How does this not make both pragmatic and political sense?

All 10 of them?

[Blue3]

What?