Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 19, 2019

A study of 10 million college students on 1,000 campuses illustrated a nationwide increase in voting, with rates doubling in the 2018 midterm election as compared to 2014, according to a report out Thursday from the Institute for Democracy & Higher Education at Tufts University. While older voters historically turned out at significantly higher rates, the new data could signal a change going into the 2020 presidential election, a year in which millennials and Generation Z are expected to make up 37% of the U.S. electorate.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And that's why the GOP needs to quash that trend.

Late teens early 20s are great for MIC fodder but otherwise they should just STFU.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-19 04:00 PM | Reply

... the new data could signal a change going into the 2020 presidential election, a year in which millennials and Generation Z are expected to make up 37% of the U.S. electorate....

A week or so ago I mentioned that fmr Pres Obama won both presidential elections with 50+% of the popular vote. I was then told that he won because he pulled out the young voters.

I wonder if this surge of college student voters will have an effect in 2020?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-19 06:56 PM | Reply

Thanks Trump!

#3 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-09-20 08:12 AM | Reply

Free college? Would college age young people vote for that? Hell yeah!

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 09:22 AM | Reply

"Free college? Would college age young people vote for that? Hell yeah!
POSTED BY DANNI"

TANSTAAFL

One lesson libs can't get through their heads for some reason.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 09:32 AM | Reply

Don't misunderstand this to mean Bernie Sanders is your guy.....Free college won't be debated in this election once a democratic nominee has been established.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-20 09:51 AM | Reply

If other nations can do it we can do it too Goatman. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. So, millionaires and billionaires will have to pay some taxes. Oh well.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 11:42 AM | Reply

"Don't misunderstand this to mean Bernie Sanders is your guy.....Free college won't be debated in this election once a democratic nominee has been established."

Elizabeth Warren is not your typical politician, neither is Bernie. If either of them are the nominee it will be discussed. Biden...not so much. May as well elect another Republican.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 11:43 AM | Reply

Crap. That just means we are going to get in worse leaders who have any less of a clue. But hey, they will offer everything free to everyone because young people might be good at many things, but obviously economics and financials isn't one of them.

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2019-09-20 12:16 PM | Reply

"If other nations can do it we can do it too Goatman. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. So, millionaires and billionaires will have to pay some taxes. Oh well.

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI "

That argument is so lame and trite.

But if you want to use it, let's be consistent. We should stop aid to third world countries. After all, if the US can be prosperous and take care of themselves, so can they.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 12:21 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

That just means we are going to get in worse leaders who have any less of a clue.

#9 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I think you are confused. I am pretty sure they are NOT going to be voting Republican.

I will take another Obama, or even another Bill Clinton (though I don't think he could survive politically in today's #metoo environment), any day over the crap show line up that Republicans put up (Trump and "W").

#11 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 12:22 PM | Reply

"That argument is so lame and trite."

I'd have to say your is just stupid.
What really holds us back from things like Medicare for all and free college? The fact that our SC said money is "free speech" and they can buy as many politicians as they want. It's not an economic thing, it's just a corruption thing.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 12:29 PM | Reply

"But hey, they will offer everything free to everyone because young people might be good at many things, but obviously economics and financials isn't one of them."

They're young what's your excuse?

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 12:30 PM | Reply

TANSTAAFL
One lesson libs can't get through their heads for some reason.

#5 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Of course there isn't. And we understand it very well. If you want the economy to thrive, you have to invest in educating your populace. But that "investment" pays dividends for decades to come (more than recouping the cost). This should not be unfamiliar to you. Capitalism is based upon this concept.

The "free lunch" that I see is that Republicans want growth without investment (in just about anything... education, infrastructure, healthcare). They think they can just cut taxes and deficit spend their way to prosperity. In reality, if you want returns you have to actually INVEST in something to actually get those returns.

For example, isn't it Republicans who always say that "tax cuts pay for themselves"? That if you cut taxes, the "economic growth" they create will raise revenues enough to offset the tax cut? Please explain how that is not a "free lunch".

Republicans always (usually wrongly) accuse others of doing the things that they are guilty of.

#14 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

TANSTAAFL
One lesson conservatives can't get through their heads for some reason.

"Invading Iraq will pay for itself."

And you dummies actually believed it!

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 12:37 PM | Reply

""Invading Iraq will pay for itself."
And you dummies actually believed it!

#15 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Deflection noted.

Funny how proggies -- inluding you, snoofy -- get bent out of shape if someone brings up Hillary or othter lib political burnouts, but do not hesitate to bring up the past yourselves.

And I say for the hundreth time, Dems are the party of "do as we say, not as we do".

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 01:10 PM | Reply

Republicans are the party of "do as we say, not as we do".

Abortion, marital infidelity, sex out of wedlock, hiring illegals out of the gas station.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 01:14 PM | Reply

Republicans want growth without investment (in just about anything... education, infrastructure, healthcare). They think they can just cut taxes and deficit spend their way to prosperity.

Exactly. And then the deficit is only a problem during campaign season, and when a dem is in office.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-20 01:23 PM | Reply

"TANSTAAFL
One lesson libs can't get through their heads for some reason.
#5 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Of course there isn't. And we understand it very well.
#14 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL"

If y'all understand it so well, stop talking about "free college" or "free health care". Neither exist.

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 02:49 PM | Reply

Free speech.

Does that exist?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 02:52 PM | Reply

If y'all understand it so well, stop talking about "free college" or "free health care". Neither exist.

#19 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Ah... Back to Goatman the word nazi. Gotta use the correct pronouns and HIS definition of words.

Must really piss you off to go to the grocery store. Where they have "buy one get one free" (where you are paying for both products with the list price of one) or "free samples" (which are paid for out of the margins on the other products you buy).

"Free", in those cases, refer to how much the person consuming the service is charged to use that service. Obviously it costs something to provide those services, and someone (in the cases you listed, the government) has to pick up that cost.

free adjective
fr"
freer; freest
Definition of free (Entry 1 of 3)
1: not costing or charging anything

Is that what Republicans think when they hear of something being "free"? That it is free to you because it doesn't cost anything to produce? I would say that is idiotic, but I can't say it would surprise me coming from the segment of the population trying to turn the movie "Idiocracy" into a reality (they've made pretty good progress... already have a reality show president).

#21 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-20 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Free Mumia!

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:48 PM | Reply

"Ah... Back to Goatman the word nazi. Gotta use the correct pronouns and HIS definition of words."

Nope, not a word Nazi. I'm just pointing out that democrats like to hide behind "soft words". (thanks, George Carlin for that phrase). As George pointed out, Americans like to hide behind a soft language because it hides or disguises the truth. "Free college" sounds so much better than "Taxpayer funded college" and is an easier sell.

That's why people say "pro choice" instead of "abortion rights" because abortion is an ugly word, but is softened by "pro choice". Hell, pro-choice describes 99.99$ of what we do every day and has nothing to do with abortion.

So no not being a word Nazi. I'm just agreeing with George Carlin and his views on "soft language".

If you don't want to listen to the entire 9 minutes, listen to the first minute at least. It makes the piont.

George Carlin on soft language

www.youtube.com

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 05:50 PM | Reply

That's why people say "pro life" instead of "against women's rights" because against women's rights is an ugly phrase, but is softened by "pro life."

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 05:54 PM | Reply

"That's why people say "pro life" instead of "against women's rights" because against women's rights is an ugly phrase, but is softened by "pro life."

#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-20 05:54 PM "

Who says they are against women's rights? Oh, no one. Just another snoofygames piece of troll bait.

Not biting.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who says they are against women's rights?

Their actions do.

By limiting and eliminating a woman's rights.

Duh.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-20 06:06 PM | Reply

--George Carlin on soft language

The Left went from "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant". The second usage removes responsibility. "Undocumented" is just something that "happened" to the immigrant, like being hit by lightening. No fault of his. Like the dog ate his documents or something..

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-20 06:08 PM | Reply

"Who says they are against women's rights"

They do, when they say they want to take away the right to abortion.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:09 PM | Reply

""Undocumented" is just something that "happened" to the immigrant, like being hit by lightening. "

No, it's a reflection of the fact that being here illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil offense.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:10 PM | Reply

"The Left went from "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant". "

George would like this one becaue in his monologue he points out how soft language adds syllables. And your example went from 6 to 8 syllables.

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:16 PM | Reply

"No, it's a reflection of the fact that being here illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil offense.

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-20 06:10 PM"

Wrong again, snoofy. People here illegally can be convicted of a crime.

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:21 PM | Reply

Then there's San Francisco, which creatively renamed convicted felons as "justice-involved individuals."

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-20 06:24 PM | Reply

"People here illegally can be convicted of a crime."

You're missing the point, which is that an undocumented person's mere here presence isn't a criminal act.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:27 PM | Reply

...undocumented person's mere presence here presence isn't a criminal act.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:27 PM | Reply

---- it.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Would have loved to seen a discussion between George Carlin and George Orwell about the political abuse of language.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-20 06:33 PM | Reply

"..undocumented person's mere presence here presence isn't a criminal act.

#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

They can be charged with a crime, so that would make it a criminal act. Even if they aren't they are still here illegally.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:36 PM | Reply

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Orwell, 1984

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-20 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They can be charged with a crime, so that would make it a criminal act."

Merely being charged does not make one a criminal.
Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty," Goatman?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:37 PM | Reply

#38 "There were good people on both sides."

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:38 PM | Reply

1984 should be required reading in all high schools. It was in my high school, but I had already read it and Animal farm, so that week in English was easy.

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:38 PM | Reply

"Even if they aren't they are still here illegally."

Speaking of Newspeak...

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:41 PM | Reply

"They can be charged with a crime, so that would make it a criminal act."

Merely being charged does not make one a criminal.
Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty," Goatman?
#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

I didn't' say being charged makes one a criminal. I said they can be charged with a crime, so that would make it a criminal act. I never said being charged makes one a criminal.

"Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty," Goatman?"

I've never wavered on that position and have said nothing to imply otherwise.

Thus endeth another session of snoofygames.

Bye, now

#43 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:41 PM | Reply

"I've never wavered on that position and have said nothing to imply otherwise."

Sure you have.
You called them "illegal aliens" before any finding of illegal activity has taken place.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 06:53 PM | Reply

"You called them "illegal aliens" before any finding of illegal activity has taken place.

POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Who is "them"?

If someone is in this country illegally, then he is an illegal alien. That can't be disputed. If someone is in the country legally, I'm not talking about that person when I say illegal aliens, troll. duh.

------- snoofygames.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 06:57 PM | Reply

"If someone is in this country illegally"

^
Not a thing that exists, in law.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 07:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#46 FF

#47 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-20 07:03 PM | Reply

Factual Flag?
Thanks.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 07:29 PM | Reply

Last month's Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens," except when quoting other sources. The court's nonjudgmental language established a humanistic approach to our current restructuring of immigration policy.
www.cnn.com

"Illegal alien" is name-calling.
Go figure.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 07:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort