you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 11 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago* (9 children)

    It's actually not the boomers who elected Reagan. It was their parents and the generation that immediately followed them. Boomers, that is the actual baby boom generation (born 1946 to 1955), voted overwhelmingly against Reagan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    I disagree.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

    In 1980, it was kinda close, 45v44 (18-21yo) and 44v44 (22-29yo), but I wouldn't say they were "overwhelmingly against". By 1984 they seemed quite in favor of him. They had help, no doubt, but they were not largely against; marginally against at most.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is an incomplete picture. Because it's from exit polls it only accounts for those who actually voted. It doesn't take in to account at all those who abstained. And it doesn't list by generation just by 10-year increments. And generations don't fall into neat 10-year increments. At that point in time boomers were anywhere from 20 to 35.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    It doesn't take in to account at all those who abstained.

    Abstained? You mean helped Reagan win? How'd that strategy work out?

    And it doesn't list by generation just by 10-year increments.

    False. Behold, arithmetic!

    1980 election
    Age (DOB) Range
    18-21 (1962-1959) =3
    22-29 (1958-1951) =7
    30-44 (1950-1936) =14
    45-59 (1935-1921) =14
    60+ (1920-past)

    1984 election
    Age (DOB) Range
    18-24 (1966-1960) =6
    25-29 (1959-1955) =4
    30-49 (1954-1935) =19
    50-64 (1934-1920) =14
    65+ (1919-past)

    What they lack is a neat cutoff at 1945.

    And generations don't fall into neat 10-year increments.

    No one is doing that.

    Wikipedia:

    The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964 during the mid-20th-century baby boom that followed the end of World War II.

    More arithmetic! 1964-1946=18

    At that point in time boomers were anywhere from 20 to 35.

    1945-1960. Sure. Seems a breath away from a neat ten year increment, but sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Doesn't stop them from sucking his cadaverific cock nowadays though, frankly if they had come out swinging against him more aggressively there wouldn't have been nearly as many issues nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    My parents were boomers and they (and all their boomer friends) fucking hated Ronnie Raygun. It definitely was not all boomers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    The most-important 2 books on understanding US politics, is Woodard's "American Nations", on the 11 nations inhabiting North America, & how they are stable, once instantiated,

    & Thom Hartmann's "Screwed", on what real national-prosperity is ( I've only read the beginning of that, & it's the 1st-time I've understood what's wrong with normal "economics", as presented by everybody else ).

    IF one looks carefully, as Woodard did, one can see that the votes follow specific counties that are culturally-aligned, in these 11 nations.

    It isn't "all boomers", rather, it is in the Tidewater region, votes went this-way, in the New York region, votes went that way, in Yankeedom, they went this other way, etc..

    The book "The Big Sort" is on how polarization is self-creating the ultimate only-political-monocultures US of A.

    That, of course, is going to make the US's Civil War Part2 be .. more territorial in its ideological-basis, .. ( & that has implications, too ), but .. it's still down to regional-cultures defining/controlling the US's fate.

    Woodard's book is sooo important, that I wouldn't consider moving anywhere in North America without seeing which culture was ruling that county, now.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago

    Thanks for the book recommends. I think I've heard Thom mention his book(s) before, including that one, when listening to his podcast, but I never heard of the other. Just tracked down the audiobook and started listening...

  • source
  • parent