Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 02, 2019

Melanye Price: Next Nov. 3, seven million young people of color will have turned 18 since the last election. These newly eligible voters are primed for political participation after having consumed a steady diet of videos of racially motivated shootings and stories about the kidnapping of immigrant children.



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

By expanding the numbers of young people, people of color, L.G.B.T.Q. folks and progressive whites who vote, progressives can take back the White House. The Democratic Party should mount a campaign with a bold set of propositions that excite progressives and not those voters for whom racial fears can be easily exploited.

This is the generation taking action on the climate crisis, living in the #MeToo era, happily and comfortably -----. This group is larger than the six million Obama 2012 to Trump 2016 voters, larger than Donald Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

And there is much more compelling evidence that we can motivate these young people to vote than in the party's ability to forecast the sentiment of white swing voters " who voted for America's first black president and then threw their weight behind the most racially divisive president in modern history.

Instead, the progressive political industry should invest in organizing and mobilizing young people of color. Grassroots groups and independent political organizations have already demonstrated the promise of this strategy.

Any progressive worth their salt should realize the path to the future doesn't necessarily run through the past. These times and Trump's actions and inactions have activated today's youth in ways none of us boomers can relate to because today's youth are fully cognizant that the ability to change things begins in the streets and flows to the political houses currently controlled by those with the most money. The rise of AOC and those like her are proof that some of our youth have advanced past the restrictions of yesteryear and have embraced the immense power of social media and non-traditional methods of communication.

I realize that dependence upon young people to show up and vote has been as much of a white unicorn as the elusive white working class voter, but based on all that we're seeing today I would be greatly surprised if 2020's wave isn't led by those whose memories of Presidents in their lifetimes begins and ends with W, Obama, and Trump. And we know which one of the 3 they hold in highest esteem.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-01 04:47 PM | Reply

Like the article mentioned, Keep feeding them vidoes of unarmed cop killings and the resulting non-prosecutions.

#2 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-01 07:35 PM | Reply

They only matter if they get off their butts and vote. Otherwise they don't matter.

#3 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-11-01 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Somebodyelse says exactly what I am feeling. From what I see, so far, and hear, so far, is they are totally removed from thinking about our politics. They are "in their phones." If we want action we need to communicate with them through those phones. That should be what we learned from Trump but apparently haven't. I'm still getting far more emails than texts about politics, it shows that the Democrats are behind the curve of technology. We should be communicating with supporters and voters with texts not emails. Emails are yesterday. Politicians need to operate in today. And I'm not very savvy on technology, texts could already be yesterday too but I'm not aware of it.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-02 01:04 PM | Reply

I'm still getting far more emails than texts about politics


If people are deciding what or who they're going to vote for based upon tweets, texts, emails, yard signs, billboards, television commercials, or any other such simplified messaging, I'd actually rather they didn't vote. These people are to under-informed or misinformed to understand the issues and candidates.

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-11-02 01:36 PM | Reply

"I'd actually rather they didn't vote."

I'm simply commenting on the effectiveness of their efforts and emails are yesterday. If that is a politician's strategy he will lose.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-02 01:44 PM | Reply

Hate to call out my peers and contemporaries, but that is why I posted this story that it seems no one has bothered to actually read. It's not just about what these young voters might do, it's about what they're both doing and have already done. And it's also about the fact that vibrant, progressive politics will draw this crucial block to the polls, while milquetoast moderatism absolutely won't:

The Alliance for Youth Action works year-round to turn out the youth vote through organizing on-the-ground. In 2018, one of its affiliates, MOVE Texas, got at least 21,000 new young voters to the polls in a state that has some of the most restrictive voter registration laws in the country.

Despite the obstacles, the number of young Texans who voted tripled from the 2014 midterm election: Just 8 percent of Texas youth cast ballots in 2014, while 26 percent did in 2018.

Over the past 20 years, the best-performing Democratic candidates in statewide elections in Florida and Georgia have been Mr. Obama, Mr. Gillum and Ms. Abrams. (Hillary Clinton in 2016 was actually Florida's highest Democratic vote-getter ever.) This year, Ms. Abrams dramatically increased Democratic turnout, garnering more votes " 1.9 million " than any other Democrat running for any office in the history of Georgia (and that includes Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton).

Doug Jones's victory in the Senate special election in Alabama and Beto O'Rourke's strong showing in his Senate race in Texas are also examples of the power of this electoral coalition and evidence that Ms. Abrams's theory might include more states than Georgia. Were it not for voter suppression, more of these elections would have been victories and their electoral model more readily embraced by the party infrastructure.

There is also national data that suggests the Democrats don't need this constant push toward more conservatism. The hyper-focus on Obama voters who defected to Mr. Trump in 2016 obscures the fact that more Obama voters stayed home or defected to the Green Party and Libertarian Party than switched to the Republican Party.

The future was manifest in many races in 2018. While the right candidate for each electorate matters, the Democrats should not be afraid to espouse progressive policies when this is what most of the youth are drawn to as the antidote for almost 4 decades of Republican-led upward redistribution and oil-based politics.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-02 02:49 PM | Reply

Can't wait!
#Pence 2020

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-11-02 03:24 PM | Reply

They only matter if they get off their butts and vote. Otherwise they don't matter.

2016 may have seen a lot on their butts. This election more will have to take off work to vote.

#9 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-02 04:11 PM | Reply

It would be news if the young took the trouble to vote. The one group least likely to vote are adults less than 30 years old.

#10 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-11-02 04:13 PM | Reply

"The hyper-focus on Obama voters who defected to Mr. Trump in 2016 obscures the fact that more Obama voters stayed home or defected to the Green Party and Libertarian Party than switched to the Republican Party."

The author of the article appears to be the only one hyper-focused on that. And their solution is not only to ignore that group, which was big enough to determine the outcome of the last election, but also ignore the larger group mentioned in that paragraph in favor of a smaller group of -------- who annoy both of those blocks of voters. They could have written a positive, constructive article saying why it's important to pay attention to and court all three of those groups, but they blew it.

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-02 09:12 PM | Reply

"people of color"

Also, it's way past time that we called out this locution as the racist phrase that it is.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-02 09:33 PM | Reply

as the racist phrase that it is.

I never could understand this phrase either... "people of color". Whenever someone used it I thought of green Hulk.

#13 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-11-03 10:58 AM | Reply

Curious... are the Chinese "people of color"???

#14 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-11-03 10:59 AM | Reply

"Curious... are the Chinese "people of color"???"


#15 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-11-03 12:31 PM | Reply

Let me help you out Tremain:


#16 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-11-03 01:39 PM | Reply

Like the article mentioned, Keep feeding them vidoes of unarmed cop killings and the resulting non-prosecutions. #2 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-01 07:35 PM
Make sure to remind them about who's in control of those cities where those shootings keep going non-prosecuted.

#17 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-03 09:37 PM | Reply

"People of color" is anybody that "white people" don't consider "white". There was a time when that included Italians, "Spaniards", Greeks and even Eastern Europeans, many of whom were able to become "white" by changing their names and losing their accents. In America, there are white, heterosexual, cis-gender, "Evangelical Christian", men. They are the default "person". Everybody else is "other" or "hyphenated". Not because they choose to be, but because the "white man" considers them to be "other".

"People of color" is used because what once was seen as just discrimination against black people is now being understood as discrimination against anyone who isn't "the white man". It is easier than trying to label every kind of "other" separately.

#18 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-04 09:34 AM | Reply

Should both parties pursue what the youth want to get their votes?

Of course, it is the votes you want.

But, after getting their votes, will you give them what they want?

There is a reason why the minimum age to be in the House, Senate, and White House is higher than 18.

It is because time teaches you what you want and what you need are not the same.

Yes, you need the youth vote, but when the youth support goals at odds with what is recognized by their elders as not good for them and/or country...then what.

I will agree that age doesn't always equate to wisdom. We hope experience does provide wisdom, understanding, and prudence.

Unfortunately, the minimum age requirements haven't proven to be an effective requirement based on the actions of the three branches for decades.

#19 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-04 09:38 AM | Reply

#18 | Posted by WhoDaMan Within my life time, the preferred and acceptable term for the melamine rich individuals,
1950s- Colored
1960s- Negro
1970s- Black
1980s- African-American
Before then the polite term was "Person of Color" which was preferable to the other term common for a hundred years.

#20 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-11-04 10:27 AM | Reply

Let's try this again. "People of Color" is a term for anybody who is not "white" (as defined by "white people"). Black people didn't ask which of those names they would like to be called by. I remember when we fought to be called "colored" because it was better than "n****r", and then Negro because it sounded more dignified than "colored". I also remember when we decided to take control of the language about us during the "Black is Beautiful" movement. We decided what we wanted to be called. African-American, once again is an attempt to chose a more dignified appellation. This country also treats other people with skin other than "white" as different from the "default person (who is white)" by attaching labels to those "others". But understand: it is "white people" who create the labeling of "others". Sometimes those "others" try to find a more dignified self-reference, since it is established that there is going to be a label attached to those people no matter what.

#21 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-04 03:18 PM | Reply

Correction: Black people weren't asked which of those names they would like to be called by.

#22 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-04 03:19 PM | Reply

Thirty years ago I had a kid, mixed as hell. On her birth certificate under race I put in "human".

#23 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-11-04 04:30 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