"Former Lead Writer and Editor, Bernie 2016."

https://mobile.twitter.com/rjeskow?lang=en

Dem voter. I don't think I'm the only one...

I'm just saying that the constant narrative that seniors turn out a larger percent of their age group is not something dems should be particularly happy about. There's a 10 point gap favoring the GOP in this age group.

Nobody "votes against their own interests".

A large part of the country disagrees with us about what "their interests" are.

On a list of issues, the environment comes it at 2.9%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a state that is being pummeled by storms exasperated by the shifting gulf stream due to melting ice caps - a state where the words 'climate change' are banned from official documents.

What do you call that?

edit https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/FAU_Florida_Jan_2020.pdf page 4

Thanks for setting that straight. That condescending language grates on my nerves and I really appreciate your succinct correction.

It's a step up from low-information voter, but what are you going to call it? Disjunctive? How about, non engaged? nothing wrong with that. It might even be healthy! Or, try for the more politically correct 'non-biased gifted'?
Give me one, or is it not important to talk about at all? That's also worth exploring. Could be the part of the population that doesn't vote anyways...

and call it disagreement about priorities?

We'll consider a senior 65 and older.

Today's 65 year old voter was born in 1955.

On its face, you'd think this voter would be prime target for the Democrats because they came of age during massive social and cultural upheaval in the United States. By age ten, they had seen Kennedy's assassination, the beginning of Vietnam, the Civil Rights Act, and all that the 1960s had to offer. By 20, they had seen Vietnam devolve into a quagmire, protests, more civil rights and Watergate. By 30, they were right in the heart of the Reagan Era, a complete transformation of government away from the New Deal era that defined a bulk of their childhood.

But something happened around the time these people turned 30 - which is also around the time Americans really start buying into the voting process (take 2016's exit polls, 19% of voters were under 30. 65% of voters were between 30-64 years of age). Talk radio started demonizing the left. Ronald Reagan had started demonizing the left. Liberalism was now a bad word predicated on the idea of handouts, communism, freeloaders and taxes. These boomers also, around this time, likely became very distrustful of the government because of Watergate. Prior to Nixon, there wasn't an idolization of government but certainly there wasn't demonization we've seen since. There was this general principle, an idea, that while the government was flawed, it still generally used its resources to do good. I think Vietnam began to challenge this idea and Watergate all but killed it. Enter Ronald Reagan, who told Americans government was evil. As Reagan put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

These people bought it and it carried over into the idea that was pushed by the modern GOP, despite the fact the GOP is just ingrained in using government power - just for different reasons. FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ wanted to use it to better society - help the underprivileged, the poor and the minorities. The Republicans wanted to use it to help the military and the rich.

Democrats will tax you to death. Republicans won't.

For that 30 year old now entering the political landscape, that was the narrative that introduced them to politics.

At 40, it was right in the heart of the Clinton presidency. Maybe they voted for Clinton. Maybe they liked Clinton. But FOX News was just around the corner, and people like Rush Limbaugh were spreading hate and lies on talk radio at a level unseen in American culture. Oh, and despite how affable and funny and charismatic Clinton was, he kinda seemed untrustworthy. He didn't seem to tell the truth much.

At 50, we had just experienced terrorism, another war, and now a decade-ish of FOX News telling us liberals are to blame for everything. This voter probably supported Clinton in 1996, was turned off by the Lewinsky ordeal in 2000, voting for Bush, and likely just cast their support for Bush again a year prior - cementing their overall support for the GOP.

At 60, they probably voted for Romney. Maybe they supported Obama in 2008 on a whim but not in 2012. More FOX News indoctrination. More scare-mongering. More talk about freeloaders and healthcare changes and fear of immigrants. After all, they've been told, for 30 years now, that all this was bad, bad and bad.

In 2016, they voted Trump - and likely will vote Trump again in 2020.

So, aside from Joe, who IMHO isn't going to build enough excitement to take down Trump, and aside from anyone who falls into the narrative of 'evil lefties', it would seem the party would be better off throwing up their arms in surrender and becoming the old guard/non-tea party representatives and maybe - like Joe said - consider a GOP VP? Like Kasich? I just can't buy that.

The census shows the largest voting group as under 35 - and yes, they did only turn out at 18% in 2016 , but the same can't be said for 2008 (51%) and 2018 (32%) so maybe the push should be to get these bigger kids out to vote - If I remember correct, they vote 68% dem (vs. their senior compatriots at 45%).

And its clear who that candidate is.

In the age of Trump with all the executive orders and flouting of rule, it is easy to see how the center/right-of-centre could try to paint him as a danger. There is no record AFAIK of Bernie being autocratic outside of trivial points of expediency.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply! Appreciate!