Over much of this primary season, if there’s one constant I’ve seen from various self-identified young people (under 30), it’s that the Democratic Party needs to reach out to them, to do what they want before they’ll consider voting for Democrats. There usually follows a laundry list of demands, along with saying that the party should select candidates who would “excite the base,” or more properly, excite them. They even have reasons why the party isn’t doing that, things like “corporate control,” “the Establishment,” and of course the ever popular “Blue Dogs.” The reality why the party isn’t reaching out them is what they don’t realize or want to admit: They have it backwards.
Tag Archives: education
There was a story in Wednesday’s NY Post about potential issues at polling places. Mainly, that independents are suddenly realizing that New York has a closed primary, and they’re not going to be able to vote in the upcoming primary. That means that only those registered as Democrats or Republicans are going to get to vote in their party’s primary.
Over on the People’s View, there’s a post looking at Bernie Sanders “free college” plan. One can assume that it’s the same as a bill he proposed along those lines. The idea of “free college,” although it’s really only tuition free college, has caught on with number of people, particularly the younger generation of current (or soon to be) college students. It’s not a bad idea, except for the problems. As I said about the healthcare plan, it’s another “alligators in the swamp” problem. That is, it’s not that the general idea isn’t laudable, it’s the details where things get tricky. Matthew Yglesias over at Vox has a couple of articles about the problems, and reluctantly concludes that it’s unrealistic. In looking through the legislation, not only do I agree it’s unrealistic, it’s not going to be “sellable” even to “solid blue states.”
In my last post, I talked about how the Republican Party’s establishment has been watching in horror as their formerly (badly) hidden encouragement of racism and bigotry has exploded in their face. While true, and definitely attention-grabbing, it’s distracting from their other big problem. Three years ago, I talked about how the Republicans needed to “check their assumptions,” and sadly, they haven’t. The end result is that their basic philosophy of government has been a complete failure.
Over the past several weeks, I’ve been getting lectured to by various members of the purity left. According to them, I’m not really a progressive, I’m actually a Blue Dog, or some other worse name they’ve come up with. Why? Because I’m a pragmatic liberal, not a hardcore liberal like they are. Somehow, they’re under the assumption that they are the majority of the party (they’re not), and they are the base of the Democratic Party (they’re not). I’ve been chastised for explaining why “real progressives” don’t – and can’t – win in many areas, which according to them, is only because our candidates aren’t “exciting” enough. All of which falls under “the usual” stuff when dealing with them, but here’s the thing that’s truly infuriating: They’re also saying that if their preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination, they’ll stay home or vote for the other party’s candidate, and encourage others to do the same. What that shows me? They either don’t care about the consequences, or they don’t think there will be any.