UC Berkeley’s Jerome Karabel makes a none-too-subtle generational pitch that superdelegates should back Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton (via the L.A. Times):
In Obama, the Democratic Party has a potential nominee who offers a unique opportunity to bring the younger generation firmly into the political process, to make many of its members lifelong Democrats and perhaps to lay the groundwork for a historic realignment on the scale of Roosevelt and Reagan.
Yet with Democratic primary voters split nearly 50-50 so far, and with 10 primaries still to come, it remains possible that Obama will not be the party’s nominee. Although there is no denying Clinton’s many strengths, the ability to inspire young people is not among them. Should she rather than Obama emerge as the Democratic nominee, the developing but still fragile bond between the young and the Democratic Party could well be shattered. And should her nomination come about in apparent defiance of the popular will, a sense of outrage might drive many in the younger generation away from the Democratic Party and perhaps from politics altogether.
In January, I suggested that the cross-gender youth support for Obama, when combined with his effort to present himself as the candidate who happens to be black (unlike the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton) raised the possibility that coming generations of voters might reject identity politics. That Obama has demonstrated his willingness to play the race card when necessary this year does not invalidate that hypothesis as to voters in the longer-term.
At Salon, Rebeeca Traister collects anecdotal evidence that the Cult of Obama may be alienating younger women as the campaign wears on:
There is truth to this exaggerated electoral tableau. Young people are voting for Obama; Clinton is a troubling candidate for many women and men; and there is a sense that younger women feel more distant from second-wave feminist leaders than ever before.
Yet some female voters have begun to express nearly as much disenchantment with the Obama-mania of their peers as with their Clinton-promoting mothers. And even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots.
However, anecdotes – even ones as unintentionally amusing as this batch — are no substitute for data. The Gallup data from March shows almost identical levels of support from young women for either Obama or Clinton over John McCain. Traister & Co. can swap e-mail with each other, but so far they seem to be a vocal minority.
Aside: While not broken down by age, last week’s Lifetime poll of women shows that:
Hillary Clinton was the only candidate who registered a significant net change in public opinion since January: 26% of women surveyed said they like her less now compared to just 15% who said they like her more.
Ouch. There are plenty of other interesting findings in the Lifetime poll. For example, by a margin of two-to-one, women think Obama has been helped more than hurt by the media due to his race. And while the percentages of women who changed their opinion of Obama since January were basically a wash, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was the most common justification given by those who now like Obama less. The poll also included findings specifically for Pennsylvania, including a large number of undecided women voters — much like the latest L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll (which also showed that 40% in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina expect Wright to be a problem for Obama in the general election).
Update: Insta-lanche!
“[D]ark and funky”? You can post that at Salon?
The author wants Sen. Obama to take the nomination because he believes that more young people will imprint Democrat than Republican, they will retain that imprint, and will continue voting Democratic for years to come. As a premise it is facially sound, but I think it has some underlying problems that will prevent that from coming about.
(1) Young people are notoriously non-voters; they haven’t ever voted in the numbers that the proponents of ‘the youth vote’ have predicted. Based on past performance, my prediction is that an Obama candidacy will not produce a statistically significant increase in voters for the Democrats.
(2) Time. The campaign is going on long, and the enthusiam of younger voters for Sen. Obama has had a faddish quality to it – the screaming, the fainting, etc. If this emotional high can be sustained until November I will be surprised. Summer is coming and the distractions it offers will pull many away from the campaigns – only true political buffs will be paying attention to this stuff in June.
(3) Brand loyalty is no more. The idea that a person gets imprinted on a brand name, such as a political party, and remains with that forever seems to me to fly in the face of what has happened to brand loyalty elsewhere – that is, ask Ford, GM, and Chrysler where brand loyalty went. Utter loyalty to a political party from your first vote until your grandchildren carry you to the gravesite is a thing of the past and cannot be counted on at all.
I think the article contains too much wishful thinking, predicting too far in advance what humans will do, on a topic that isn’t basic to the lives of most people.
something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly
I was thinking of this, guins.
How are we ever going to change things if we don’t press on. The reason the 60’s were so successful is because they were passionate, and were willing to give their lives. These were not just blacks willing to give their lives for justice, it was young disillusioned white kids. I was never so proud to be an American than growing up in the 60’s. I am only sad that I was too young to take a stand myself.
There are many ways things can change Keith. I would recommend that you be very careful about what and to whom you are bowing to and what change you are advocating before you pledge yourself to that movement.
Also, Keith: change isn’t always for the better. That should always be the first standard applied to anyone’s recipe for change.
So many punchlines…
“However, anecdotes – even ones as unintentionally amusing as this batch  are no substitute for data.”
Wait, isn’t anecdote how leftists make policy?
“The reason the 60’s were so successful is because they were passionate, and were willing to give their lives.”
Well, no.
The truly dedicated revolutionaries were the ones who threw the baggie full of piss at the cops from the back of the crowd, thus encouraging said police to beat the tar out of the poor useful idiot schmuck in the front of the crowd who was at the demonstration trying to pick up chicks.
And, really, the only time said revolutionaries actually gave up their lives was during bomb factory industrial accidents.
Goddammit, Brain. You keep stealing my thunder!
Never mind that you are exactly right. Despite all the hype you hear about the 1960s, and all the protests, and “changeyness”, blah, blah, the sad fact is that the vast majority of the “young people” back then didn’t give a royal rat’s ass about “the war in Veetnam”, “civil rights”, “free love” or any of the other pap the LSM likes to lay on so thick these days.
Most of them were only looking to get laid and/or get high, and that was about it. The few really serious “Merton of the Movement” types were for damn sure not out on the front lines; they were the first to bug out when the heat got turned up.
And yes, about the only time they “gave their lives” for anything was either when they O.D.ed on some drug or, as NOB so succinctly put it, bought it in some bomb factory industrial accident.
Hitler was pretty changey. Mugabe has been an agent of change. Stalin created change you could believe in. Saddam? Mr. Change. Yup, be careful what you ask for.
Think of all the change brought about by Pol Pot!
Perhaps Obama does not have enough power crackling through his jeans. That’s not something you can fake.
Thank you, CB, that’s some mighty kind words.
I suggested that the cross-gender youth support for Obama
Dammit! Now the youth are cross-gendering?! Where will it stop! Next thing you know, they’ll be cross-pollinating! That slippery slope is getting steeper!
*Sob*
I would guess BO has a fair amount of trans-gender support also, though it’s too small a demo to turn up in surveys.
Also: Listen…to what the flower people say.
the developing but still fragile bond between the young and the Democratic Party
This does intrigue me. Looking at Democrat inflexibiity on certain issues, I wonder whether these young people see themselves funding Medicare and Social Security in 20 years?
WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
“moo-vement”?
…….. GE ….and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.
Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?
Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President (SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled “Mainstream MEDIA)…Ronald Reagan…began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.
About every day the TV Talking heads say: “The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer”
…& You’d Think…after nearly 30 years they would FINALLY ASK: (& Answer) WHY?
The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%’s to the low 30%’s.
(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million…earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million-You’d make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million)
Simple: tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster. There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: “The Two-Tier Wage Structure”
i.e. Pay the Top level “executives” a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80’s had articles & coverage of the “Two-Tier Wage Structure” that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan’s election & tax cuts.)
IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS-everybody else is going to get-a whole lot poorer…huh?
a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.
Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?
Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President – The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.
GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS. (GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet). They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.
MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpieces of the Obama Pushers (BOPN-Barack Obama Propaganda Networks)-just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.
There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters & clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters..Top Level..PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE—Media whores.
Here’s a glimpse of ONE of the $Billions of Dollar TAXPAYER-RIPOFF-Reasons GE wants to “elect” Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants.
The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 – made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).
No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn’t loan the money – too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater)
Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.
McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said…we just have to face it we need to start building new, “CLEAN”, nuclear power plants. i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.
(“Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack”.)
About every day the TV Talking heads say: “The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorerâ€Â
And they are counted amongst what economic demographic? And they work for whom again? And you are trusting them to tell you the truth, now that you know who their masters are?
Re; #2
Good points, guinsPen! I would add the following:
(4) Jerome Karabel thinks that any shift of young voters to He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned will be a plong-lasting one, as if the Messiah will bring permanent peace and prosperity during His reign. It is far more likely, however, that the Messiah will do what the Democrat-controlled Congress did in 2007 – rack up the worst approval ratings in history as both the economy and foreign situation in the Middle East turn into complete disasters. His ten-thumbed handling of the Wright affair and the current anti-small town snobbery flare-up point to this outcome. While a majority of voters might be willing to have their faces urinated upon in this election cycle, a few months of the unmitigated calamity of an Obama administration will quickly cure that.
Even if guinsPen’s three objections could be overcome (and I don’t think that they will), He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned and his Democrat disciples can be counted upon to self-destruct.
Elme, there are therapies for that shit nowadays, but first you gotta realize you need help. Although I do admit it’s a little novel to see GE cast as Masters of Mordor; usually it’s Exxon-Mobil.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts with you feelin’ afraid
Step outa line, the man come and take you away
You gotta stop, children
What’s that sound
Ever’body look what’s goin’ round…
Regards,
Ric
Well, Karl — https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11845#comment-381813 — I’m transgender, and there’s NO way I go Democrat nationally. They think they own me, and I don’t want to be anybody’s slave. Besides, they seem to approve of Sharia, and I’d never live through that.
elme never heard of tax shelters. He probably specializes in bus shelters, instead.
Elme, I just looked and there’s a black helicopter hovering over your house.
Well, Rose, we’re glad to… umm… have you… on… our side…
…sorry, there just isn’t a way to say that that doesn’t sound suggestive in an “AoS Lifestyle” kind of way, but there you go.
Ditto to that.
Heh, heh.
What elme fails to realize, of course, is that we’re all In On It (except datadave, of course; even VRWCs have to have some standards) and just use that sort of thing as a way to harvest items for the Enemies List.
And, of course, that the comments at PW are nuclear powered, and the exposure resulting from that much time spent entering stuff into the comments box have irradiated him beyond hope (we, of course, take precautions — the lead-lined suits are cumbersome but relatively comfortable once you get used to them.) I’m sure your descendants will enjoy their purple tentacles, elme!
Regards,
Ric
You’d think after nearly 30 years they would finally ask if it’s true.
Hey, at least Mero didn’t say “batting for our team.”
NTTWHBAWWT.
@ #22
MD, credit comment #2 to Mikey NTH.
I want to add to my comment #2, in section (2): In summer the colleges empty out for the most part. Some students graduate and go onto to another school or out into the real world; many are back home, some are travelling. Of those who will be returning to university, some will be transfering to other schools or moving to different lodgings. When fall rolls around the groups of students who have sustained each other in this movement will not be there in the form they were in before. They will have lost the cohesion that often sustains such enthusiasms. I doubt that the enthusiasm will be there the way it was before, that it can be recreated before the November election.
There will be other classes, other friends, other interests, and the collegiate life starting anew to compete for the attention of the college student.
My grandfather, a life-long FDR democrat, had a reason to not vote for Carter back in 1980 that has proved to be all too true. Gramps would not vote for Carter because he was too young and we’ll get stuck paying for him for way too long after he isn’t president anymore. My gramps was pretty far-sighted in that regard. Isn’t Obama even younger than Carter was in 1980?
Also, what the point everyone else is making about “change†– All change is not progress.
Furthermore, whenever I hear Obama talk about change or consensus what I really hear is this common definition of teamwork. Teamwork is when everybody else does what I tell them to do.
Mikey, you’re right about the shifting lives and shifting allegiances, especially for those entering the work-force. It’s one thing to talk about the taxes when you’re not paying them, its entirely another when you realize how much money goes to the government for no return at all.
What is that old bastardized saying, “a man under 25 who is not a democrat has no heart, a man over 25 who is a democrat has no mind”.
Teamwork is when everybody else does what I tell them to do.
“Forward to the Glorious Socialist Future Comrades!”
[all chins, eyes, whatnot gazing forward]
He better not be what he seems to be (empty, but pretty suit) or he will produce a generation of lifelong Republicans, I am not a “Reagan Democrat”, I am a “Carter Republican.”
Interesting take. Carter was 56 in 1980 — though seeking re-election. You may be thinking 1976, when Carter was only 52.
Obama is 46, will be 47 by the time of the November election. He’s actually a little older than Bill Clinton was when he was first elected in 1992.
That said, character matters a lot more than youth all by itself. Clinton (going on 62) and Carter (83) are lesser men now than Theodore Roosevelt was when he became president at age 42.
Ric Locke: “Elme, there are therapies for that shit nowadays…”
Actually, there isn’t. There’s medication, and even that mostly just keeps new paranoid crap from entering in, rather than denting the old stuff. Therapy works less well than time.
As to Keith and all the change-excitement. It is not accidental that you weren’t old enough to make a stand then and so see it through rose-colored glasses now. The echoes of your longing are still affecting you view now.
McGehee,
“You may be thinking 1976, when Carter was only 52.”
Yup, you are correct, I was thinking about 1976. Everyone had a lot more reasons to vote against Carter in 1980.
“That said, character matters a lot more than youth all by itself. ”
My point was that they are all bastards to some degree and since McCain is a lot older than either of his potential opponents, that his age is actually a plus mark in his column – we’ll all have to pay less to keep McCain in a style he will become accustom to in his retirement.
AVI, don’t bust the bubble.
It’s all about hope, you know.
Regards,
Ric
The 1960’s were forty years ago. As an instrument of change (wealthy young white men rejecting traditional values for trying to seize cultural and political power) it’s fairly poor. While the 60’s model of “change” was successful in forcing out working/middle class people from the media and entertainment, it generated backlash among working and middle class whites who are profoundly threatened by a wealthy white elite. John Quincy Adams creating an Andrew Jackson as an analogy (thought not perfect).
Obama is endorsed by Bruce Springsteen. The WSJ profiled Max Weinberg, Springsteen’s drummer (and Conan O’Brien’s band leader) … as a real estate developer. One who got the bug during downtime in touring, and bought lots of expensive stuff for his mansion and homes he hopes to develop.
This is Obama’s base. Wealthy and privileged “rebel” white guys. Who are the man while rebelling against “him” … which is a polite way of deploring the “peasants.” As we’ve seen in Obama’s comments about the peons in San Francisco’s Billionaire Row. At the Getty Mansion.
Frank Thomas wonders what is the matter with Kansas? It’s Max Weinberg as a wealthy real estate developer profiled in the WSJ (complete with photos of his mansion).
The identity politics are deeper — power and status and “class” rather than pure race/gender. It’s “Larry the Cable Guy” vs. Bill Maher.
The Democrats are unexcelled at teaching “young people” to be disappointed by politics. And that’s good – they have to learn it sometime. They will; it’s happened, I suspect, to all of us. No matter how the party jumps this time around, they’ll teach institutional disappointment to a whole new flock of voters. Expecting them to stay Democrats ad infinitum afterwards, though, is a bit of a stretch.
well….punk the vote was a loozer strategy…
but let’s face it.
O is at least an order of magnitude cooler than johnkerry.
the thing u dont get, old ppls, is that O would look good on a windsurfer.
;)
Poseur.
Fraud.
Liar.
i know u think thats shallow, but honestly, it is just a lot about appearance for us.
Poseur.
Fraud.
Liar.
Get. Help.
hehe, SBP, u cant stop me
;)
stix an stones an all that.
lolz!
Poseur.
Fraud.
Liar.
That’s your quota for the day, child.
Hope it was good for you.
johnkerry looked very fake on that windsurfer.
dukakis looked fake in that tank.
i think it is difficult to make O look fake visually.
Which is all we know about your vaunted “intelligence”. You’re a poseur, a fraud, and a liar.
<anticipatory evil, maniacal cackle>
#43 Jim Rockford. I just want to say this. J.Q. Adams may have been priviledged, but he did serve, up until the end. When he left the White House he went into the House of Representatives and served until he died. He may have been an elitist, but he treated that as a burden rather than as a featherbed.
Old John Q. is worthy of respect.
Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams were political enemies, and came from different backgrounds; but each served the Republic well and both are worthy of honor.
…which he did in the House chamber, by the way.
Yeah, right on the one spot in the house where you could hear every conversation, no matter how far away.
Bloody canny old s.o.b. he was!
Interesting, Rebeeca Traister’s comments are a mirror image of Obama supporters comments.
In the Democrat primary you have only two choices.
You can be a racist or a sexist.
I love this primary