The Red Dawn Difference

by lestro

For all the talk of the youth vote being the demographic that put Obama over the top, the truth is that while their energy and legwork was unmatched, the real revolution in this election came not in the 20-somethings, but in the 30-somethings.

It is the Red Dawn generation, the forgotten demographic, that made the difference this time around. We are the 30-somethings who in the past eight years have grown into not only the dominant demographic in the media and commercial sectors, but have also started raising families and buying homes – the time when people start to seriously vote.

We are also the first generation to be raised completely under the ideals the Baby Boomer worked so hard to establish. We are done fighting battles of the 60s and don’t see the world the in black and white ways of our parents and we have reached the point in our lives when people become politically active.

The proof is in the exit poll results. This was not a youth movement, but one led by the tail end of Generation X and the Red Dawn Generation, those of us who came of age in the era of Reagan and Thriller and Mutual Assured Destruction.

In 2004, the youth vote made up 17 percent of the electorate. In 2008, they made up 18 percent. In 2004, they went to Kerry 54-45. This year they broke 66-32 for Obama.

The 30-44 demographic, however, where the real Change took place. In 2004 and 2008, they made up 29 percent of the vote, but in ’04 they voted for Bush 53-46. This year, they went 52-46 for Obama.

THAT was the group that won this election for Obama, not the youth vote. Fifty-two percent of 29 is way bigger than 66 percent of 18.

Read more of this post


by twit

First, there was this rumbling from the LA Times blog on January 15, 2008:

“Not that it’s going to diminish her ambition to live there again, but Hillary Clinton says she views the White House as something of a prison.”

Then, there was this from Breitbart today:

Clinton also said she was asked by other women “all the time” about what to do with unfaithful husbands.

“I say you have to be true to yourself, no one story is the same as any other story,” she said.

“‘I don’t know your reality. I cannot possibly substitute my judgment for yours, but what I can tell you is you must be true to yourself, you have to do what is right for you.’”

All this made possible today by The Tyra Banks Show. The Hillary YouTube channel promises its own dramatic footage, but at present, there is instead a video that talks about how cool Chelsea is, how original the Hillary is, whoop. ee. the. inspiration…

and if you dare try to escape that, you might fall into the rabbithole of playlists and propaganda from Clinton, Inc.

So here I am, driven half-mad by listening to Hillary give a ‘relaxed’ interview in the ‘ridin’-on-the-bus’ genre, that I dare not watch because the combo of watching a rocking countryside go by in the background is more than this chick can bear at the minute.

So I have a question for the brilliant genies out there who might be able to explain why we would ever want someone who thinks the White House is like a prison to have the responsibility of running it. Or someone who could seem so callous as to compare the lap of luxury at 1600 Pennsylvania to prison. Haven’t we had enough of the bubbled-in mentality? Don’t we want someone who believes they can make a difference?

As to the bit about those unfaithful husbands, I get what she is trying to say, the standard “You are the one with the most information about the situation and are therefore in the best position to decide what to do.” Classic empowerment chitchat, but instead of quitting while ahead, it seems to run amok.

One of the holy screeds of crisis intervention, as I understand it at least, is that the idea of responding to a random request for help is to give people a sense of their options. Telling people what they “must” and “have” to do is out of bounds.

So until the video evidence can be carefully examined and reviewed, such is the rant.

UPDATE: oh, oh, the video… she never doubted bubba’s love. never? not even a teensy weensy little bit?

hmm… I can’t get the video from Wonkette to embed.

Thus concludes the pundit improv session for the night.

a tale of two parties

by lestro

I am as guilty as anyone of talking about how both parties suck from the same corporate cock, but yesterday provided an interesting look at the differences between our two major parties – as well as in the parties, especially in the area of the economy.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts won the Michigan Republican primary yesterday based mainly on his history as a business man. Michigan has suffered more than any other state in recent years as the auto industry practically collapsed under its own weight, taking all of the support industries (thanks, NAFTA!) with it to the tune of about 300,000 jobs.

They call it a one-state recession as Michigan’s unemployment rate is 7.4 percent, with an increase to more than 8 percent expected in 2008. Because of this, 68 percent of Republican primary voters described the economy as “Not so good / poor” and 55 percent listed the economy as their number one issue in this fall’s election.

Romney’s victory over McCain is generally attributed to the former’s success as a venture capitalist who made his money turning around failing corporations. Romney has pledged to do the same thing for the US economy. Whether he can is a matter for a different day, but that’s the pitch.

For the record, Hillary Clinton received 55 percent of the vote in a Democratic primary that does not count toward the nomination and did not include Barack Obama or John Edwards. One would think she’d have done better considering she was the only candidate in the race…

Meanwhile, in non-Michigan news, Barack Obama admitted in an interview with the Reno Gazette Journal he would be not be a good
chief operating officer:

“But I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of ‘here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go.'”

In the Democratic debate last night, Hillary Clinton, who has absolutely no business experience herself, challenged Obama on that statement and, drawing from the Bush 2000 playbook (and not for the last time in the debate), compared the presidency to being CEO of a major corporation and then compared Obama’s statements to Bush:

“I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy,” she said. “You’ve got to pick good people, certainly, but you have to hold them accountable every single day. We’ve seen the results of a president who, frankly, failed at that.

“You know, he went into office saying he was going to have the kind of Harvard Business School CEO model where he’d set the tone, he’d set the goals and then everybody else would have to implement it.”

Obama countered, rather effectively, that Bush does not listen to people who have differing ideologies or bring people together, where he would differ.

But once again, it raises the question about the role of president. Eight years ago, we elected a CEO and, like most CEOs of major companies in the past 10 years or so, he ran the country into the ground, making sure he and his buddies got rich off the whole deal.

Granted we elected a miserable failure of a CEO who ran several companies and a baseball team into the ground, but still…

So the question remains, should a president be able to run the government like a business or can we admit that the role of government is not to make money and we need someone with vision to aim the bureaucracy in the right direction?

The question I most want answered by any of the candidates on either side is what they believe the role of the president is and how they would best fill that role. Truly, this is the debate we need in order to pick the next leader as it is in the philosophy and role of president that the candidates most differ.

But I am still waiting.

de ja vu archives

posted by twit

“Signing a new major-label contract would have killed us straight off,” [Thom Yorke of Radiohead] added.”Money makes you numb, as M.I.A. wrote. I mean, its tempting to have someone say to you, You will never have to worry about money ever again, but no matter how much money someone gives you what, you’re not going to spend it? You’re not going to find stupid ways to get rid of it? Of course you are. It’s like building roads and expecting there to be less traffic.”

filed under “some people just seem to …get it” 12.08.07