A good point. Him losing a primary may actually be counterproductive, because then Trumpism can run without the baggage of Trump.
I'm not for risking this in real life, but if I got to script the future, Trump runs as the republican nominee in 24 and gets crushed along with down-ballot impacts on other Republicans. That might not kill Trumpism, but it'd be a hell of a blow.
A good point. Him losing a primary may actually be counterproductive, because then Trumpism can run without the baggage of Trump.
I'm not for risking this in real life, but if I got to script the future, Trump runs as the republican nominee in 24 and gets crushed along with down-ballot impacts on other Republicans. That might not kill Trumpism, but it'd be a hell of a blow.
I'm not convinced trumpism can die, at least not till the Boomers die off (along with some of their milquetoast GenX supporters). Trump made their ignorance not only OK, but celebrated. People like that don't quietly go away easily
Trumpism is an authoritarian ideology, not a new one mind you, but resurrected and rebranded. I hate to call it "Trumpism" and give that dolt Trump any credit for it. He just recognized it simmering below the surface and gave it oxygen.
It didn't start with the boomers and won't die with the boomers or any generation, and there will always be some people that it appeals to as it ebb and flows throughout humanity. It's going to be a tough slog. It has risen to the highest office in our government and threatens to again. That's what is so scary this time.
"The fascism this time" is how I've heard some historians refer to it. The notes might change, but the music stays the same: reactionary, hypernationalist, and repressive
This is from after the election. There's a small difference in Trump support between 65+ and 50-64, but it isn't much. They've got you at 52% Trump, so generationally, not "pro-joe".
You overlooked Eva's distinction: "boomers without college degrees." Check the statistics on that difference again. Why are Trump Republicans taking such a biased view against education? Education does make a difference.
I made the point in a previous article that this anti-education bias is the 21st century fixation by the RW. Education - college - was encouraged by the government, federal (GI Bills) and states (state universities were often free to residents). And it was, in most cases, a rounded education in history, science, etc. (One point little known is that Hitler's plan for occupied Europe included the dumbing down of education to the bare minimum (6th grade, if memory serves me) and limiting higher education to the Aryans.) A massive side effect to the anti-tax movement was increasing tuition to ridiculous levels at the once free state schools. So, yeah, those rural folks who used to be able to go the state universities couldn't afford them.
There are lots of really bad effects of being reflexively anti-tax but by and large most of my conservative friends are. ThereтАЩs a cottage industry even among the poor and middle-class to avoid paying taxes because the тАЬtheyтАЭ in charge of all governments are bureaucratic idiots who will only squander any money given them.
While ironically those same people will also bitch & moan about poor roads, local schools, or slow response time by government to their demands. Geez, I wonder why!!!
The other ironic point is that they shovel billions/trillions into the military-industrial complex with very little of it benefiting them. Eisenhower was right on point - and it's been ignored by politicians on both sides.
My MIL came to me the other day worried about how the Inflation Reduction Act will hurt her. Apparently, somebody on Fox was avowing it would. Please know that my MIL, although comfortably enough off, does not make anywhere near $400K. Her news sources were doing their best to convince her that any tax increases would ultimately harm her.
Along with the cost increase (and possibly because of it) has also come what I suspect (no time to do the numbers) is a decrease in access to the premier (and even just good) schools.
Okay, I took a second to look at one example: Harvard. Took in 2,200 in 1982. Took in 1,980 in 2021.
That's just one example not keeping up with population growth, and I'm not 100% sure it fully translates to other prestigious or even well regarded schools, but I suspect it does. I don't think Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. are keeping up with population levels. I definitely know it is a hell of a lot harder to get into some of those schools than it used to be. OSU used to require a pulse, now the average ACT is 31. When I was growing up in Ohio it was the fallback school anyone could get into. Now, not so much.
So to your point, a 'good' (or better) school is now much more expensive and harder to get into academically.
I'm not sure what a "good or better" school is. People can/do get very good education at state universities, including those in states like ND, etc. The mystique for Harvard frankly is hard to fathom when so many of the MAGAs come from those elite schools! And yes, all those state schools have become more expensive, thanks to cuts in state budgets.
A good or better school is to me, generally one of the ones you've heard of. That's a lazy mental shortcut, but I know damn well it goes on all the time. That isn't to say you can't get a good education at a school that isn't well known, but outside of various specialties, your odds are better (for employment opportunities) at an Ohio State, USC, Texas, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc., etc., than they are at Youngstown State, Zane State, Blufton, Ohio Northern, Slippery Rock, Wayne State, etc., etc.
I only used Harvard as an example of what is considered top flight not remotely keeping up with population growth.
I used the term 'good or better' to try and get past any notions of comparing schools at the large state schools and above. That Northwestern is a 'better' school than Ohio State or that Texas has a better environmental law program than Harvard (I have no idea) is beside the point I was trying to make.
The article I quoted, admittedly pre-election, differentiated between older boomers and younger boomers and those with/without college degrees. The Pew article doesn't and it doesn't overlap with college degrees. My point was all boomers are most definitely NOT Trump fans. And also, we are not dying off.
On the dying off part though, sure you are. Projections show 72M in 2019 and 64M in 2028. Silent is falling faster of course, but even GenX drops a million in that time frame. And of course, dying isn't the only thing that keeps people from voting. Unpleasant subject of course.
One point on dying - save for accidents or unforeseen pandemics - my life expectancy at age 70 (now) is 87 years. Which means that we're gonna be around for some time. :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you and others of your generation (which includes my parents) living on and on. But the statistical reality is that the boomer generation is going to be shrinking relative to all the others not named 'silent'. And that does have an impact on elections, other things held constant (which they usually aren't).
Giving you a fist pump, Eva. IтАЩm 65 and recently retired. IтАЩm glad I can now pour energy and money into matters that before I could only vote or write letters about. Of course, IтАЩll die before those younger than me but I sure can still make a difference. All the family in my generation (as well as those younger) are implacably anti-Trump.
James, please tone down the hatred, even if an idiot triggered your rage. The comment was deleted either by the poster or the moderator, so better angels prevail.
A good point. Him losing a primary may actually be counterproductive, because then Trumpism can run without the baggage of Trump.
I'm not for risking this in real life, but if I got to script the future, Trump runs as the republican nominee in 24 and gets crushed along with down-ballot impacts on other Republicans. That might not kill Trumpism, but it'd be a hell of a blow.
I'm not convinced trumpism can die, at least not till the Boomers die off (along with some of their milquetoast GenX supporters). Trump made their ignorance not only OK, but celebrated. People like that don't quietly go away easily
Trumpism is an authoritarian ideology, not a new one mind you, but resurrected and rebranded. I hate to call it "Trumpism" and give that dolt Trump any credit for it. He just recognized it simmering below the surface and gave it oxygen.
It didn't start with the boomers and won't die with the boomers or any generation, and there will always be some people that it appeals to as it ebb and flows throughout humanity. It's going to be a tough slog. It has risen to the highest office in our government and threatens to again. That's what is so scary this time.
"The fascism this time" is how I've heard some historians refer to it. The notes might change, but the music stays the same: reactionary, hypernationalist, and repressive
Stop blaming all boomers. It's the middle-aged boomers without college degrees, the ones born in the 60s who are Trump's Pets. Us older ones are pro-Joe. See https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/08/senior-citizens-trump-biden-2020-voters-428131
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
This is from after the election. There's a small difference in Trump support between 65+ and 50-64, but it isn't much. They've got you at 52% Trump, so generationally, not "pro-joe".
You overlooked Eva's distinction: "boomers without college degrees." Check the statistics on that difference again. Why are Trump Republicans taking such a biased view against education? Education does make a difference.
I made the point in a previous article that this anti-education bias is the 21st century fixation by the RW. Education - college - was encouraged by the government, federal (GI Bills) and states (state universities were often free to residents). And it was, in most cases, a rounded education in history, science, etc. (One point little known is that Hitler's plan for occupied Europe included the dumbing down of education to the bare minimum (6th grade, if memory serves me) and limiting higher education to the Aryans.) A massive side effect to the anti-tax movement was increasing tuition to ridiculous levels at the once free state schools. So, yeah, those rural folks who used to be able to go the state universities couldn't afford them.
There are lots of really bad effects of being reflexively anti-tax but by and large most of my conservative friends are. ThereтАЩs a cottage industry even among the poor and middle-class to avoid paying taxes because the тАЬtheyтАЭ in charge of all governments are bureaucratic idiots who will only squander any money given them.
While ironically those same people will also bitch & moan about poor roads, local schools, or slow response time by government to their demands. Geez, I wonder why!!!
The other ironic point is that they shovel billions/trillions into the military-industrial complex with very little of it benefiting them. Eisenhower was right on point - and it's been ignored by politicians on both sides.
And also support taxbreaks for millionaires and billionaires despite the fact the vast, vast majority of them never will be ones themselves
My MIL came to me the other day worried about how the Inflation Reduction Act will hurt her. Apparently, somebody on Fox was avowing it would. Please know that my MIL, although comfortably enough off, does not make anywhere near $400K. Her news sources were doing their best to convince her that any tax increases would ultimately harm her.
Along with the cost increase (and possibly because of it) has also come what I suspect (no time to do the numbers) is a decrease in access to the premier (and even just good) schools.
Okay, I took a second to look at one example: Harvard. Took in 2,200 in 1982. Took in 1,980 in 2021.
That's just one example not keeping up with population growth, and I'm not 100% sure it fully translates to other prestigious or even well regarded schools, but I suspect it does. I don't think Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. are keeping up with population levels. I definitely know it is a hell of a lot harder to get into some of those schools than it used to be. OSU used to require a pulse, now the average ACT is 31. When I was growing up in Ohio it was the fallback school anyone could get into. Now, not so much.
So to your point, a 'good' (or better) school is now much more expensive and harder to get into academically.
I'm not sure what a "good or better" school is. People can/do get very good education at state universities, including those in states like ND, etc. The mystique for Harvard frankly is hard to fathom when so many of the MAGAs come from those elite schools! And yes, all those state schools have become more expensive, thanks to cuts in state budgets.
A good or better school is to me, generally one of the ones you've heard of. That's a lazy mental shortcut, but I know damn well it goes on all the time. That isn't to say you can't get a good education at a school that isn't well known, but outside of various specialties, your odds are better (for employment opportunities) at an Ohio State, USC, Texas, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc., etc., than they are at Youngstown State, Zane State, Blufton, Ohio Northern, Slippery Rock, Wayne State, etc., etc.
I only used Harvard as an example of what is considered top flight not remotely keeping up with population growth.
I used the term 'good or better' to try and get past any notions of comparing schools at the large state schools and above. That Northwestern is a 'better' school than Ohio State or that Texas has a better environmental law program than Harvard (I have no idea) is beside the point I was trying to make.
The article I quoted, admittedly pre-election, differentiated between older boomers and younger boomers and those with/without college degrees. The Pew article doesn't and it doesn't overlap with college degrees. My point was all boomers are most definitely NOT Trump fans. And also, we are not dying off.
Understood on the educational part.
On the dying off part though, sure you are. Projections show 72M in 2019 and 64M in 2028. Silent is falling faster of course, but even GenX drops a million in that time frame. And of course, dying isn't the only thing that keeps people from voting. Unpleasant subject of course.
One point on dying - save for accidents or unforeseen pandemics - my life expectancy at age 70 (now) is 87 years. Which means that we're gonna be around for some time. :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for you and others of your generation (which includes my parents) living on and on. But the statistical reality is that the boomer generation is going to be shrinking relative to all the others not named 'silent'. And that does have an impact on elections, other things held constant (which they usually aren't).
Giving you a fist pump, Eva. IтАЩm 65 and recently retired. IтАЩm glad I can now pour energy and money into matters that before I could only vote or write letters about. Of course, IтАЩll die before those younger than me but I sure can still make a difference. All the family in my generation (as well as those younger) are implacably anti-Trump.
Reactions like this are exactly why every other generation can't fracking stand Boomers
James, please tone down the hatred, even if an idiot triggered your rage. The comment was deleted either by the poster or the moderator, so better angels prevail.