Birmingham officially sucks more...

[Vandy Vol]

Well, again, with respect Counselor, you are.

A. I did not write that "we should follow older generations." ("we" meaning "you" in a general sense, that is the younger generation).  "You" in a specific sense made that jump.

B. You write that "I act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds".  No, I don't.  I act as if we (and I use that term generally again, Counselor, because "I" did not vote for The ONE and I don't know who "you" voted for; "we" refers to a plurality of the electorate) elected a bunch of candy-ass, apologetic, socialists with communistic tendencies.

C. I did not complain that "you" (again, generally) voted for someone in an older generation who, as it turns out, is a mistake; I complained because it seems to me with my limited resource of information that "most" of "your" (again, in a general sense, not "you" in particular) generation (and, by "generation", Counselor, I'm referring to the "under 30" age group that voted in the 2008 Presidential election) voted for The ONE as opposed to the "under 30" age group that voted for McCain or someone else.

My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post.  You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them.  I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.

Seriously very interesting.  I'd like to see your source for this statistical information (since some of your statistics are not listed in my source as far as I can determine) for two reasons (and, if I missed it in an earlier post I do apologize, Counselor):

A. For verification, in which case I would consider conceding your point (e.g. {or i.e.?} that more "older" people voted for The ONE than did people under 30) if I'm satisfied that my "old" brain can interpolate and cipher the same figures as your "young" one.

B. For future use, I was looking for a good source of statistical data on the 2008 election some time ago for my own edification and all that I could find was the article that I already sourced.

Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

125,225,901 total votes were counted:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million.  That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29.  Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over.  In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama.  50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama.  Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves.  The 18-29 year old group only made 18%.  So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.

[Kaos]

Just curious...how old are you?

All OTHER things remaining equal from the 2000 and 2004 elections  - yes, the 18-29 demographic is what got Hussein elected. The majority of the over 30 white vote went GOP, and 98% of the black vote went Democrat. The only difference in this election from the last is the increase of voters between 18-29....It made the difference. Blacks did not get Obama elected - young whites did. Again - they made the difference.

Absolutely wrong. As they are the ones who have done it. When I say "progressive policy", I don't literally mean "progress" from an efficiency standpoint - I mean more less "liberal policy" guised as progress. We all know that is the farthest thing from actual "progressive policy". Progressive Policy instituted by Jimmy Carter and put on steroids by Billy Clinton promoted "giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back". See the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 (revamped several times in the 90's under Clinton). Creditors/Banks were forced to lend to undeserving people. It has all come to a head now. The subprime market collapsed because of this. If you want to listen to Barney Frank and believe that garbage he spews, then go ahead. But this crisis was a direct result of over extension of credit to people who could not handle it - all for the sake of International PR and getting to tell the rest of the world that even our lowest class can "afford" a home. Much in the same way the GD was caused. Its the entitlement mentality.

Functional - yes, life was much more functional then. People did what they NEEDED to do and not wanted. People had their priorities a lot more straight than now. Sure - let me get that Playstation 3, the newest laptop, a new CD and eat out half the time - while the mortgage payment falls by the wayside. Do you think people did this "back in the day"? NO. People had to eat, so that got up at the crack of dawn to farm. Again, you are taking technological advances the last 100 years and showing me those as the reasons we are more functional now. Thats mixing apples and oranges. One of your examples - Airplanes. Most people take air travel for pleasure(a WANT) not business (functional - a NEED). Most technology we use is for personal convenience. My point was that people did things more out of NEED then. People more things NOW than ever out of WANT. Tell how that is more functional.

I think you can really boil this down to a simple sentiment.

There are those (Barney the Purple Dickosaur, Clinton, Obama, Carter, Pelosi) who believe it possible and perhaps noble to attempt to legislate equality of outcome.  A chicken in every pot, as it were.  Then there are the rest of us who believe that we should strive to provide the citizens of this country with equal opportunity, but allow personal strengths (and weaknesses) determine the outcomes.  

[GH2001]

My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post.  You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them.  I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.

Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

125,225,901 total votes were counted:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million.  That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29.  Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over.  In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama.  50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama.  Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves.  The 18-29 year old group only made 18%.  So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.

Margin of Victory in 2008 was 8 million - 66 million to 58 million.

66% of 18-29 Voters went to Obama in 2008. 24 million voters x 66% = Roughly 16 million who voted for Obama.
54% of 18-29 Voters went to Kerry in 2004.  20 million voters x 54% = Roughly 11 million who voted for Kerry.
47% of 18-29 Voters went to Gore in 2000.   16 million voters x 47% = Roughly 7.5-8 million who voted for Gore.

That is 5 million more than in 2004 and 8-9 million more than in 2000.

These increases would have been plenty enough to have pulled Gore or Kerry to a victory. These voters are what sealed the deal in 2008. Also - don't underestimate the Latino vote which came out in many more numbers than in 2000 and 2004, and went 80% to Obama. Although Blacks came out more to vote in this election, they voted about the same % as normal (95-99% to the Dems).

[Lurking Tiger]

Google servers must be about to melt.

[GH2001]

Google servers must be about to melt.

Teh googles is da monkeys nutz.....

[Tarheel]

My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post.  You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them.  I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.

Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

125,225,901 total votes were counted:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million.  That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29.  Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over.  In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama.  50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama.  Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves.  The 18-29 year old group only made 18%.  So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.

It seem that the plurality of the country regardless of age group voted for The ONE with the possible exception of the other 50% of the 45-64 year old group that did not vote for him.  Assuming this data has not been adjusted 30 and up do seem to made up the largest age-related voting block for The ONE.

But, based on GH2001's post the 15,840,000 or so votes by the 18 - 29 age group was more than enough to push him over the top.  I should point out that one of the sources you provided says

"Youth Vote a Driving Force Behind Victory of President-Elect as Demographic Sets Record as 66% of 18-29 Year Olds Vote For Winning Candidate"

source:  http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html

It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win.  So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.

Thanks for the information.

[wreckingball]

It seem that the plurality of the country regardless of age group voted for The ONE with the possible exception of the other 50% of the 45-64 year old group that did not vote for him.  Assuming this data has not been adjusted 30 and up do seem to made up the largest age-related voting block for The ONE.

But, based on GH2001's post the 15,840,000 or so votes by the 18 - 29 age group was more than enough to push him over the top.  I should point out that one of the sources you provided says  source:  http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html

It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win.  So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.

Thanks for the information.

Not me. Voting is for squares.

[Vandy Vol]

Just curious...how old are you?

25

All OTHER things remaining equal from the 2000 and 2004 elections  - yes, the 18-29 demographic is what got Hussein elected. The majority of the over 30 white vote went GOP, and 98% of the black vote went Democrat.

I was under the impression we were talking about generations; I didn't know we were also narrowing it down to ethnicity.  I guess we could also say that white men in the age range of 30-44 who are between 5'8" and 6'2" went GOP by a decided margin, but that's straying from the initial category comparison: age.

The majority of people ages 30-44 (52%) voted for Obama.  Approximately 36.3 million people between 30 and 44 voted, and 18.9 million of those voted for Obama.  That is around 3 million more than the number of 18-29 year olds that voted for Obama.  And, of course, about 23 more million people in the age bracket of 45-64 voted for Obama.  That's almost as many 18-29 year olds that voted period.  As stated over and over, 18-29 year olds played a part in the election of Obama.  No doubt.  Everyone who cast a vote for him did.  However, to say that we are the sole cause, or to claim that we are even a major or large cause of that is to ignore the fact that more votes came from other age brackets than us.  We're not the single generation that screwed things up; multiple generations gave millions of votes to the guy.

Absolutely wrong. As they are the ones who have done it. When I say "progressive policy", I don't literally mean "progress" from an efficiency standpoint - I mean more less "liberal policy" guised as progress.

Then that is where our misunderstanding came in.  As a political science major, when I hear progressivism, I don't think about liberal guises; I think about the traditional form of American progressivism that arose beginning in the 1880s.

Functional - yes, life was much more functional then. People did what they NEEDED to do FIRST and not what wanted to do as #1 priority. People had their priorities a lot more straight than now. Sure - let me get that Playstation 3, the newest laptop, a new CD and eat out half the time - while the mortgage payment falls by the wayside. Do you think people did this "back in the day"? NO. People had to eat, so that got up at the crack of dawn to farm. Again, you are taking technological advances the last 100 years and showing me those as the reasons we are more functional now. Thats mixing apples and oranges. One of your examples - Airplanes. Most people take air travel for pleasure(a WANT) not business (functional - a NEED). Most technology we use is for personal convenience. My point was that people did things more out of NEED then. People more things NOW than ever out of WANT. Tell how that is more functional.

Again, this was a misunderstanding on how you're utilizing terminology.  When you say something is functional, I think of it as working.  If you say something is more functional than something else, then I think of it as working better (or more efficient).  All of the items that I mentioned, including airplanes, are more functional than historical means of travel and productivity.  To me, the concept of people putting wants before needs would be better categorized as spoiled.  And while that is certainly a problem in our society, I'm not so certain that this attitude was created by poor politics beginning in the 1960s.  I think our success and overabundance of resources has left us sitting on our laurels, and we always assumed that the jobs would be there, the income would be there, the resources would be there, etc.  Hopefully people are now learning otherwise.

[wreckingball]

You know, when I said I hated old people, I meant the ones that drain social security, drive too slow in the fast lane, and refuse to die. I only stated 35 because that was ole whatshisnames age when he asked what I thought was old.

[Vandy Vol]

It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win.  So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.

Of course.  I never said that we played a small role.  Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles.  The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29).  The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.

My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama.  Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama.  Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes.  Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes.  Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation.  That was my only point.

[GH2001]

I was under the impression we were talking about generations; I didn't know we were also narrowing it down to ethnicity.  I guess we could also say that white men in the age range of 30-44 who are between 5'8" and 6'2" went GOP by a decided margin, but that's straying from the initial category comparison: age.

Now you're just being a smartass. My point in bringing up the white and black votes was to show that the voting patterns of those 2 demographics didnt change much from 2000/2004 to 2008. The one big delta I saw from 00/04 to 08 was the 18-29. The black vote essentially stayed the same percentage wise.

Then that is where our misunderstanding came in.  As a political science major, when I hear progressivism, I don't think about liberal guises; I think about the traditional form of American progressivism that arose beginning in the 1880s.

In political circles you should know what is meant by "progressive policy". Its pretty standard for the 'liberal' side of the aisle to use this terminology. It sounds so much better than 'liberal' or 'socialist'. Thats why they use it.

Again, this was a misunderstanding on how you're utilizing terminology.  When you say something is functional, I think of it as working.  If you say something is more functional than something else, then I think of it as working better (or more efficient).  All of the items that I mentioned, including airplanes, are more functional than historical means of travel and productivity.

 

The word functional in what I do for a living means sticks with me everywhere I go. I can see it getting misinterpreted pretty easily so no worries. By functional I meant - Needs vs Wants. People were more efficient. When they did something, work was a byproduct instead of pleasure of entertainment. Its all good .

To me, the concept of people putting wants before needs would be better categorized as spoiled.  And while that is certainly a problem in our society, I'm not so certain that this attitude was created by poor politics beginning in the 1960s.  I think our success and overabundance of resources has left us sitting on our laurels, and we always assumed that the jobs would be there, the income would be there, the resources would be there, etc.  Hopefully people are now learning otherwise.

Fair enough

[Kaos]

25

If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25. 

Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are. 

[Tarheel]

Of course.  I never said that we played a small role.  Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles.  The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29).  The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.

My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama.  Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama.  Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes.  Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes.  Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation.  That was my only point.

Well, fair enough, Vandy Vol.

You spin it your way and I'll spin it mine.  The way I see it the least culpable age group percentage-wise in electing The ONE were the 65+ Seniors who voted 51% in favor of McCain.  Next there's the 45 to 64 age group who split their vote statistically even, 50%/50%, as best that I can tell.  That makes the 18 to 44 Age Groups as the ones that pushed The ONE into the White House.

[Vandy Vol]

Now you're just being a smartass. My point in bringing up the white and black votes was to show that the voting patterns of those 2 demographics didnt change much from 2000/2004 to 2008. The one big delta I saw from 00/04 to 08 was the 18-29. The black vote essentially stayed the same percentage wise.\

I can be a smartass, but I honestly wasn't attempting to be this time.  The younger age group did vote in record numbers, there's no doubt about that.  But, of course, the candidates changed too.  Who's to say that the youth wouldn't have voted differently in 2004 than they did in 2008?  Bush may have won without dispute if the youth had voted in these numbers.  Now, I seriously doubt that would happen, but the point is that there are other deltas involved.  Different candidates, backlash against Republicans, two wars in the Middle East, economic recession, etc.  The age group that we are discussing only made up 18% of the total number of votes, so there were a lot of factors that led a lot of people to lean toward Obama; it wasn't just the youth.

[Vandy Vol]

Well, fair enough, Vandy Vol.

You spin it your way and I'll spin it mine.  The way I see it the least culpable age group percentage-wise in electing The ONE were the 65+ Seniors who voted 51% in favor of McCain.  Next there's the 45 to 64 age group who split their vote statistically even, 50%/50%, as best that I can tell.  That makes the 18 to 44 Age Groups as the ones that pushed The ONE into the White House.

Well, if you want to group the 18-29 and 30-44 together and call them the most culpable, I have no problems with that.  However, there was a divide within this thread between people in their 30's and people in their 20's as to which generation is doing what (although there's not even really a generational gap between those age groups).

My point was to show that people in their 20's don't hold the majority of offices of power, and that we don't make up the most influential voting population.  The country's leaders are of a different generation than the twenty somethings, and the vast majority of people who voted for those leaders are of a different generation than the twenty somethings, so it was rather difficult for me to see how we were responsible for any downward spiral of the country.  Again, I concur that we were part of it as far as voting goes, but the inferred sentiment within this thread was that we were the major cause of it, which just isn't so.

[wesfau2]

If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25. 

Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are. 

That's a might large paintbrush you're using, partner.

[AUChizad]

If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25. 

Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are. 

If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.

[jadennis]

If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.

I know that's what it says, but I don't think he's 36.

[CCTAU]

If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.

Sure because we were born old?

When you reach over 30 with a wife and kids, you'll look back and wonder what part of the idiocy you played. You'll wonder what was I ever thinking. But then again, there are some that never get it. i hope you guys are not one of those.

The Kenyan Jesus already had 46% of the vote. For that is the number of Americans that do not pay taxes. All he had to do was get a few pissed off independents to vote for him and he got it. Now those people are wondering just who they taught a lesson to.

But back to the original post. Birmingham sucks because of the crappy leadership that the non taxpaying people keep voting into office. Not because they shut a crappy music playing radio station down.

[AUChizad]

Sure because we were born old?
When you reach over 30 with a wife and kids, you'll look back and wonder what part of the idiocy you played. You'll wonder what was I ever thinking. But then again, there are some that never get it. i hope you guys are not one of those.

I know what you mean. I used to be a staunch hard-right Republican in my youth.

I was an officer in Auburn University College Republicans. Now that I'm pushing 30 I wish I had known better.