A fascinating bit of poll information. Scroll down to "Sanders approval of those age 45+, 13%; less than 45, 54%. That is a huge contrast. I have some curiosity whether there is a hard break at age 38 or so or this is a gradual drop-off from 25-45.
Also,
Males 41%, Females 24%.
Small city/suburban men 46%, small city/suburban women 23%
As "bros" are male and generally younger than 45, it would seem that "Bernie Bros" is an accurate and not accidental description of his supporters. The Bernie supporters I know are females in their 30's, but I work in a largely female environment, so that's not surprising.
I don't have an explanation for the male/female split. Perhaps some Democrat can enlighten me. But the over/under 45 difference I think I have some understanding of. I know some of those few over 45's for Bernie. Even those who support Bernie, if they are over 45, are mostly tactical, reasoning that he's not going to get but 25% of what he attempts. As in union negotiations, both sides start out at unrealistic levels and work their way in. The Boomer liberals may be determined, but they aren't that idealistic anymore. Start with Sanders socialism, settle for Klobuchar socialism is fine with them. I don't think they necessarily even want his level of socialism, which even the Scandinavians no longer have, anymore. AB5 in California has put them off their feed pretty thoroughly. They run businesses or know people who do, and completely get it that some idealogues might miss the important details and screw up an entire industry.
But most of those won't stay home. Stopping Trump is still Goal #1. Bernie, Amy, Pete, Mike...they are checking that box whatever.
It's hard not to look at that "under 45, 54% for Sanders" poll and not be discouraged. I think it must be the idea of Bernie, not the actuality, that motivates them. He keeps making references to us being more like Scandinavian countries, not realising that they were mostly only hard socialist from 1970-90, and are now very big into limiting immigration and insisting on assimilation, and school choice and tax breaks for job creators. Their crazy uncles are all conservatives, I guess, so they don't see that Bernie is "Old man shakes his fist at clouds."
I will mention again that Sanders was very anti-immigration until 2016, when he changed because he had a shot at the nomination. He previously recognised that new immigrants drove down the wages of blacks and Hispanics already here, and he wanted to support group B over group A. And I agree. He was right then, but abandoned the idea for his own candidacy. So don't give me the line that he has been the honorable, noble warrior for the same ideas all these years regardless of the political climate. As a millionaire who has gamed the system for years he isn't any worse than the others (again, I include Republicans in this), but he isn't any better, either.
If you're 45 today, you were 14/15 when the Berlin Wall fell.
ReplyDeleteIf you're younger than 45, you don't have much recollection of the Cold War, which means that "we defeated communism" isn't really part of your personal identity or experience.
To most people older than 45 (people whose formative years were during or before the early 80s) the fall of the wall and the corresponding opening of the soviet-bloc countries was monumental cultural triumph. So many of them are going to look at the idea of supporting Bernie with the sense that this would be a huge "own goal." Like throwing away the successful work of two whole generations.
What the Bernie Bros don't understand (and what has the establishment Democrats so panicked) is that nominating the Bern to run against Trump is a built-in fail. Lots of people may not like Trump; but, considering the palpable sense of self-harm that much of the over-45 set are going to feel at the idea of a pulling the lever for a card-carrying socialist in the White House, there's probably not enough people whose dislike of the President can persuade them to accept Bernie instead.
Perhaps at age 18 I would have seen him as idealistic even though I disagreed with him. Now he comes across as humorless, angry, destructive, opportunistic and phony. The fire breathing socialist act has been personally profitable for Bernie and he's going to stick with what works. He does not seem a good bet to be a competent executive. His followers seem to be mainly naive people with a smattering of old lefties and activist-racketeer wannabes. Some of the followers are motivated by concerns about institutional corruption that are similar to the concerns of many Trump supporters, but of course with different beliefs as to what should be done.
ReplyDeleteThos.
ReplyDeleteTo most people older than 45 (people whose formative years were during or before the early 80s) the fall of the wall and the corresponding opening of the soviet-bloc countries was monumental cultural triumph.
To most people older than 45, the fall of the wall etc. was a "monumental cultural triumph" for the West, but NOT to Bernie Sanders.Bernard Sanders in the Harvard Crimson: "Time for an American Glasnost." Rather, the fall of the Berlin Wall meant that, now more than ever, Americans should listen to Bernard Sanders.
Whatever the reason (and now is not the time to explore those reasons) enormous credit must be given to Mikhail Gorbachev and the current leadership of the Soviet Union for helping to bring about an extraordinary, non-violent revolution which is forcing citizens of the Soviet Union to rethink, in almost every way, the basic foundations of their na$ion.
And now let me make a proposal, a proposal which will, undoubtedly, offend many readers--but which has to be made. In my view the time is now for a glasnost in the United States--a soul searching for our own basic truths, a major debate over our current values, an honest analysis of the real structure of our society and the creation of a mechanism to search out our dreams for the future.
Bernard went on to make four points about an American "glasnost."
Question 1: Do we need radical changes in our economic system to provide a fairer distribution of wealth and economic decision-making?
Question 2: How do we create a real democracy in which the average citizen has the opportunity to vote in elections in which meaningful choices are presented? Further, how do we create a political climate in which citizens play an active role in the affairs of their community?
Question 2: How do we create a real democracy in which the average citizen has the opportunity to vote in elections in which meaningful choices are presented? Further, how do we create a political climate in which citizens play an active role in the affairs of their community?
Question 2: How do we create a real democracy in which the average citizen has the opportunity to vote in elections in which meaningful choices are presented? Further, how do we create a political climate in which citizens play an active role in the affairs of their community?
For Bernard Sanders, "glasnost" in the US means that there should have been a loud bullhorn provided for radicals like himself to expound their views.
Look before you post addition:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: Do we need a new political party in this country which represents the interests of working people, poor people, minorities, women, environmentalists, peace activists and all people who are not being adequately represented by the Democratic and Republican parties?
Do we call it the Hippy-Dippy Party? As if "working people" agree with the far lefties...such as all the "working people" who voted for Trump, and got labeled "decloprable etc" for having done so.
Question 4: Finally, how can we create a media in this country which allows for a wide diversity of viewpoints, when ownership of the media is currently in the hands of very wealthy and powerful corporations which are primarily concerned with protecting their own economic interests?
Just wondering how many Bernie Bros were physically attacking those who disagreed with them- such as the gunman at the Republican congressmen's baseball game?