Yes and no.

On the one hand, people of both sexes are unlikeable.

On the other, women get called unlikeable when men don't. Bernie's just as shrill and scolding as Warren is.

Harris and Gillibrand, two possible 2020 contenders, won't have their "likability" ­become a story, because whatever their flaws, likability isn't one of them.

I beg to differ.

From the article:

Then, there's Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., polling at 0%. It's not a visibility problem. Seven in 10 Americans know who she is. They just don't like her very much.

"Her demeanor is basically how I picture the stern, ruler-brandishing nuns in stories from Catholic friends."

Look up the SNL videos of The Church Lady.

I've seen a number of people talking about Harris's likability and comparing her to Hillary. The funny thing is they were all Harris supporters. The line went something like 'Harris isn't Hillary. She is far more likable. She has a chance of getting elected, trust me.' To which most people responded that she doesn't have any chance of getting elected.

NicoleK, likability isn't that easy to measure. Like it or not Bernie comes across as much more likable than Warren. And it isn't a male/female thing. In part I'd blame his hair. Bernie looks kinda like Doc Emmet from Back to the Future. So his shrill hectoring comes across more comedic than offensive. That Bernie is less coherent than Warren helps to reinforce that reaction.

Patrick, you are well aware not liking someone as in their polling being very low and likability are two different things. Yes the english language is often vague. But I am sure you understand the difference.

the stern, ruler-brandishing nuns

I was gonna say "school marm". I knew Attila the Nun, and Liz isn't her.

On the other, women get called unlikeable when men don't. ~ NicoleK at June 29, 2019 1:04 AM

Au contraire, Ted Cruz has been called the "most unlikeable" person in the US Senate many times and by many people. Ted's unlikability factor was one of the reasons Beto was supposed to walk all over him in the election.

We saw how that turned out. From that one can conclude that likability is not directly correlated with electability. Sometimes the right bastard is just the person you need representing you.

Conan: From that one can conclude that likability is not directly correlated with electability.

Or that Beto is even less likeable.

I would never accuse Donald Trump of being likeable, but he's more likeable than the alternative.

Ben:

Patrick, you are well aware not liking someone as in their polling being very low and likability are two different things. Yes the english language is often vague. But I am sure you understand the difference.

There isn't a difference. Frankly, your comment is embarrassing, but my expectations for your content sank very low a long time ago. This garbage is more like the type of stuff that pseudo-intellectuals.

The quote I posted said that people don't like Gillibrand. And I don't blame them. She's a tireless panderer. Her sops to the oppressed communities are all-show, no substance.

She delivered a cringey sermon at Al Sharpton's church. I could practically hear her inner monologue: "Okay, if I do this, I will get the black vote."

That doesn't seem to be working.

And I've already mentioned her appearance at Pride. Rather than speaking about issues important to the gay community, she served shots behind a bar in a rainbow-triangle t-shirt.

Basically, Ben, you're trying to make yourself look profound and wise when, in fact, you're neither. Try posting something more in your intellectual level. No, I will not be pondering your sagacious insights for weeks. But I might walk away with an appreciation of your no-nonsense, rough-and-ready, genuine approach.

There is no difference between an article pointing out that no one likes Kirsten Gillibrand and calling her "unlikeable."

If you don't think so, then when was the last time you heard someone say, "Gosh, that Kirsten Gillibrand is just so likeable, but I don't like her"?

> women get called unlikeable
> when men don't.

What's the atmosphere like on your planet?

No hydrogen, right? Amirite?





When someone's in the mood to be butthurt there's no limit to the weirdness they'll embrace.

You just proved my point Patrick. When people call Warren unlikable they aren't talking about her obvious corruption or her blatant pandering. They are talking about school marm ways. These are two different things. Warren is both unlikable and not liked. Personally I find Sanders very likable, but I don't like him as a candidate. And Ted Cruz also proves the point. He is a very unlikable person. He just rub most people the wrong way. (Though he has mellowed out quite a bit since he lost the nomination to Trump.) Cruz is much more unlikable than Beto is, but voter prefer Cruz to Beto for his job.

All of which just proves the farce of worrying over likability and how women are discriminated against by it (which they aren't). You can personally not like someone, not want to personally interact with them, and still think they are a good fit for a job. Depending on what you want them to do being unlikable can be a huge plus. And obviously it can also be a huge minus.

I apologize for overestimating you Patrick. I get you find Gillibrand unlikable and not fit for office. But these are two different things.

Benny-boy, if I'm not living up to your expectations, then all I can say is "Thank God."

Dare I hope that your crushing disappointment in me will allow us to have fewer exchanges from now on? Pretty please?

Crid,

I am very disappointed in you... while the quality and rigor of your insults have taken a turn in the past several years, this latest one is an all time low:

"What's the atmosphere like on your planet?
No hydrogen, right? Amirite?"

Please educate yourself on the composition of Earth's atmosphere before you say something outrageously stupid like this again. Just to clue you in, we only have trace amounts of hydrogen gas here on Earth... we wouldn't even notice if it was gone because humans don't need it to breath. The vast majority of our atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen.

It's okay if Warren isn't everyone's cup of tea, what should matter are her policy proposals. This whole "likability" nonsense is just a symptom of our current celebrity culture.

No one was hyper focused on this "likability" metric 30+ years ago.

Also, "likability" shouldn't even factor in here because the opposition is one of the most disliked political figures in the history of the nation.

“Hydrogen, as atomic H, is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, making up 75% of normal matter by mass and more than 90% by number of atoms. “

Yea, well Elizabeth Warren’s *policies* suck too.

Isab,

I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to prove with your quote.

Of course hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe... but not in our atmosphere.

If you and Crid would like to be launched into the sun where it is ~75% hydrogen that is up to you... as for us humans, we'll stay on earth where our atmosphere is ~75% nitrogen and ~25% oxygen.

I didn't find Obama "likeable" - they called me a racist.

I didn't find Hillary "likeable" - they called me sexist.

I don't find Elizabeth Warren "likeable" - they should call me "anti-native American"?

If you and Crid would like to be launched into the sun where it is ~75% hydrogen that is up to you... as for us humans, we'll stay on earth where our atmosphere is ~75% nitrogen and ~25% oxygen.

Artemis at June 30, 2019 10:20 AM

Hydrogen combined with oxygen in the form of H20 is probably one of the most important elements in the atmosphere. Ever tried to breathe air with zero percent humidity? I thought not.

Artemis, Your super pedantic nature leads you into 5th grade science nerd flights of fancy. And, it is how the rest of us know, that you are “raised in a box” disconnected from any kind of adult literary allegorical conversations or actual experiences with adult non literal human beings.

You don’t have the capacity to engage anyone here meaningfully.

Isab,

You are trying too hard to make a point that you cannot make.

Most of the water on earth is in the ocean... not in the atmosphere.

Also, there is a reason we call it water and not hydrogen... because the chemical properties of hydrogen and water are not even close to the same.

Water doesn't even make up a significant percentage of our atmosphere either.

You could always just admit you are wrong instead of adamantly trying to fight for a point that is clearly mistaken.

Isab,

One further point, people work in ~0% humidity conditions all the time and are perfectly comfortable. They are called dry rooms.

I don't know why you somehow imagine that zero percent humidity would cause massive problems... you probably wouldn't even notice.

It's not like you suddenly start to evaporate and all the water gets sucked out through your skin as you rapidly become a desiccated husk.

Human beings have lipid membranes on our cells to keep our moisture inside.

As for engaging people meaningfully... exactly how was Crid insinuating that NicoleK was an alien a "meaningful" exchange?

I've got new for you, meaningful exchanges do not often happen here... what we have is a bunch of set in their ways folks who are constantly yelling at people to get off their lawn.

When folks here mature to the point where they can have a civil dialogue where they are actually interested in facts we'll be in a better place.

I don't know why you somehow imagine that zero percent humidity would cause massive problems... you probably wouldn't even notice. ~ Artemis at June 30, 2019 11:05 AM

Naturally occurring near-zero percent humidity conditions are usually recorded with very high temperatures:

"The lowest humidity was reported at Death Valley, where the temperature often reaches over 100 degrees. This elevated temperature is doubly bad for dehydrating humans. First of all, the higher temperature makes water evaporate much more quickly. Second, your body will sweat to keep itself cool, causing you to lose even more water. In a humid environment you would get some of that water back as water condenses on your skin, but in a dry environment you will just lose all your water very quickly."

I suppose that's why Isab imagines 0% humidity would cause problems. And I daresay you'd notice it quickly in those temperature conditions.

One further point, people work in ~0% humidity conditions all the time and are perfectly comfortable. They are called dry rooms. ~ Artemis at June 30, 2019 11:05 AM

If I remember correctly, those ≈0% humidity dry rooms are usually kept cool, to retard sweating and prevent dehydration.

Conan,

You are correct that dry rooms are also climate controlled to keep things comfortable.

The point is that there was no reason for Crid to insult NicoleK by insinuating she was from another planet.

Furthermore, the insult he constructed was totally off the wall and stupid.

Lastly, there was no reason for Isab to try and defend that nonsense.

Furthermore, the insult he constructed was totally off the wall and stupid. ~ Artemis at June 30, 2019 12:45 PM

Only if you take it literally?

Conan,

As I said in my original reply... the quality of his insults have taken a dive over the years.

Good insults make sense... they aren't stupid.

He might as well have said:

"What's the color of the sky on your planet?... I bet it looks blue during the day"

I'm not saying anyone should be treating others here that way, but if you are going to insult someone and you sound like a moron in the process then don't be surprised if you get called out on it.

Ted Cruz has gotten surprisingly likeable. A friend of mine has met him a couple of times and liked him, so I gave him another look.

Sometimes his Twitter feed is quite funny (I particularly liked the video of him repossessing the Dr. Pepper fridge that Ben Sasse stole) and it doesn't give the sense of being curated by a staffer on the boss's behalf.

"It's okay if Warren isn't everyone's cup of tea, what should matter are her policy proposals. "

The problem with that is: First, you have to have confidence that she actually means what she says. Here's the difference between Hillary and Warren: Hillary is a bald-faced liar; she knows it and she smirks about it. Warren is like that guy in the fifth grade who makes up all kinds of unlikely stories about his superhero-ness, and he actually believes them. When he starts spouting, you just sit and nod and say "That's a really cool story, Jeremy", because if you point out the impossibility of what he is claiming, it makes him cry and then you get detention for upsetting him.

When I worked in fashion marketing, "authenticity" (whatever that means) was the key attribute that Millennials and Gen-Z were looking for in a brand.

I suspect that transfers to politics as well. Pandering to an audience or identity group diminishes a candidate's authenticity.

For all his flaws, Donald Trump is, on the campaign trail, pretty much who he is in real life. He doesn't pander much (all politicians pander to some degree).

Warren's "I think I'll get me a beer" video was not authentic. A tenured Harvard Law professor saying "get me?" C'mon, Lizzie, give us a break. In addition, her pretzel-shaped logic in justifying her claim to be part Native American was dizzying, and a bit insulting.

The Harris campaign tweet that showed her making her jerk marinade in pearls and a brand new apron (with the packaging folds still visible) was a pathetic attempt to make her seem "jus' folks." That it was tweeted on her husband's account fooled no one.

Gillibrand's rainbow t-shirt, air high five, and "Gay Pride" shout was cringe-inducing. However, it was original. I don't think any other candidate has ever campaigned on a theme of getting drunk on shots in a gay bar in Iowa - probably because getting drunk on shots is not what you want in a president. Just ask John Tower.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, eats McDonald's and drinks Diet Coke. You won't see a tweet of him at the backyard grill with his "famous" homemade barbecue sauce or in a rented kitchen gettin' him a beer. He presents himself pretty much as he really is, an obnoxious, nouveaux-riche New Yorker with a Queens-sized chip on his shoulder.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will need to campaign as him/her self, and not as a focus-group vetted pastiche of identity groups.

"...we wouldn't even notice if it was gone because humans don't need it to breath."

*breathe

So much for correcting others on minor points. If you thought Crid was a scientist, you're simply ignorant of him.

About "likability":

Pee-Wee Herman is likable. Paul Reubens might be. Which character are you electing?

Have I been useless enough in this thread to fit in?

On the authenticity thing you more or less got it Conan. School teachers lie. A lot. It isn't unusual for one to say two completely contradictory things in class one right after the other. And just as significantly to not realize there is a conflict or just how obvious and disrespectful the lie is. It is just like you mentioned about the apron on Harris. It was a lie so obvious it showed her complete lack of respect for the intelligence of her audience.

I'm guessing that trend in education started in the late 70s. Which is why people born after 1980 put such a premium on authenticity. It is also why they have such a problem displaying it.

Radwaste,

I don't think you get it, so let me simplify it for you.

Crid was busy insulting someone (this is not out of character for him)… however in doing so he sounded like a complete and utter idiot (also not out of character).

What is astonishing to me is the how you and others are coming out of the woodwork to defend his insult against criticism... but apparently you had no issues with him insulting NicoleK in the first place.

You can be a bootlicker if you want to, but I don't tolerate bullies and see no reason to be fair or charitable to them when they aren't fair or charitable to others.

As for likability... this is not a useful distinguishing criteria for the upcoming election.

Trump is the most disliked political figure for decades.

The "likability" of any opponent is therefore not going to be a problem.

To some extent this entire discussion is also silly.

Progressive candidates are not going to be liked by conservative voters... they will never be liked by conservative voters.

That isn't who they are appealing to.

Just like Trump will never be liked by progressive voters.

As it stands the demographic shifts for the 2020 election favor progressives on the national level. That is just facts and data, not opinion.

As it stands the demographic shifts for the 2020 election favor progressives on the national level. That is just facts and data, not opinion.

Artemis at July 3, 2019 9:43 AM

There is no such thing as the “national level”. The election is state by state.

Demographics aren’t votes.

Isab,

I know the data is going to upset you... but I feel it is important to share it with you anyway:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/

Please pay close attention to the ~30% jump in voter share for generations younger than the Boomer generation in the 2018 elections.

That isn't a trend that is going to reverse as older folks pass away and younger folks reach voting age.

We don't have states that are resistant to the effects of time.

That chart is a chart of votes Isab… so when I say the demographic shifts favor progressives for the 2020 election I am talking about shifts in people who vote.

If you are in a state of denial I cannot help you... the data speaks for itself.

You don't have much of a sense of history do you Arty. That has been the purported trend for 20-30 years. Maybe longer. But it hasn't worked out as repeatedly predicted. We'll see when the actual election happens.

That Boomers are not voting in the numbers they used to is not surprising. After all, they're getting older. This by itself does not really favor one party over the other. Boomers were not automatic Republican votes. In fact, at one point, Democrats were cheered by the coming of the Boomers, thinking this guaranteed them political dominance. It did not.

Geography is more determinant than demography. People in the country's interior are not going to vote the same way as people on the coasts; likewise for the border states. People in the cities have concerns not shared by people in the suburbs and rural areas.

Age also plays a role. Once people acquire a stake in society, they tend to vote more conservatively.

Democrats have made the mistake of thinking that a demographic shift alone would hand them the presidency and long-term political dominance. So sure of this were they, that they failed to craft an appeal and platform that would appeal to voters not already inclined to vote Democrat.

Convinced now that more young and liberal candidates like AOC are the future, too many Democrats fail to understand that she won in a district which, because of a high non-citizen immigrant population, has low voter involvement; that she won the nomination by only 16,000 votes and then won a general election in which only 13% of eligible voters went to the polls.

If anything, there is at least one demographic trend that should have Democrats losing sleep; Gen-Z is already trending Republican, at such a young age.

Ben,

What on earth are you talking about?

Before you spout on with your nonsense please familiarize yourself with the data from 2018.

Whatever you are talking about from 30 years ago is as immaterial as insisting how relevant it is to know how to churn your own butter to get along as an adult.

The relevant point is that in the last election the boomer generation was a significant minority of voters... that hasn't been the case since the early 1980's.

The numbers and the data are quite clear.

Conan,

The point isn't that less Boomers are voting.

The point is that more younger folks are voting... particularly the millennial generation (i.e., the Boomers children).

There was a spike in the 2018 election from all previous election years where that generation consistently voted at ~20%... in 2018 that generation votes at ~40%... the voting rate doubled.

Like it or not the millennial generation skews progressive.

Feel free to ear mark this discussion if you like, but I think you aren't recognizing the data-based reality of the situation come 2020.

Feel free to ear mark this discussion if you like, but I think you aren't recognizing the data-based reality of the situation come 2020. ~ Artemis at July 6, 2019 5:18 PM

No, Artie, you're the one not recognizing the reality of the situation. You're stuck thinking of generational shifts in static terms, not dynamic ones.

The Millennial generation skewed liberal in 2016 and Hillary still lost. Four years later, the oldest Millennials will be turning 40. By then, more of them will own property, own small businesses, and have children of their own, all of which will serve to make them more likely to skew conservative.

Like it or not, the economy is doing well. The Democratic Party's main appeal in this election so far has been to young socialists and student loan debtors, an appeal more likely to take hold in a struggling economy.

Millennials are moving to the suburbs, where the urban-centric appeal of the Democratic platform is less likely to fall upon sympathetic ears.

Gen-Z is considerably more financially conservative than Millennials, carries less student loan debt, and is likely to resent the student loan debt forgiveness giveaways being touted by all the Democrats in the race. And those older Millennials who've by now paid off their loans are going to be less supportive of debt forgiveness giveaways without a reimbursement for themselves.

As for 2020, even more Gen-Z voters will be voting in that election. If those liberal-leaning Millennial voters are not motivated to come to the polls, their general political skew will not matter.

For all its enormous size, the Millennial generation has not yet learned to translate its size into political power. The Boomers learned early and still hold the reins of political power in the country. Gen-X, now turning 60, is only just learning to seize and wield the political power the Boomers long denied it.

Conan,

I don't know why you are hung up on generation Z for the 2020 election.

You say that I am not recognizing the reality of the situation for 2020... but you are focusing in on a voting block of people aged 18-21.

Generation Z are the folks born approximately on or after ~1998... most of those folks cannot vote because they are still children.

At the same time you want to ignore the entire millennial generation who are born from on or after ~1982. These folks are mostly in their late 20's and 30's... they can all vote.

"For all its enormous size, the Millennial generation has not yet learned to translate its size into political power."

This I agree with... but to say that is steady would be wrong. The entire spike in voting for the 2018 election that pushed the boomers to the side in terms of outvoting the younger generations came directly from their children.

You can ignore that fact all you like... but I have already presented the data showing that this is factually true.

As I said Arty we will find out when the actual election happens. If you aren't aware that your prediction has been predicted for over 30 years then you have no sense of history. This demographic shift is nothing new. People have been writing books about it my entire life and probably longer. So I find the methodology lacking due to it's constant failure to produce.

Maybe this time it will work, maybe it wont. Demography is not destiny and especially so in politics.

Ben,

I agree that the results of the election will ultimately resolve everything.

That being said, can you please reference a prediction from 1989 about millennial voters failing to pan out?

The oldest millennials in 1989 were about 7 years old. So clearly the prediction couldn't have been based on the millennial age demographic.

As a result when you talk about a "sense of history" we cannot possible be talking about the same thing.

Look at the data Ben... in the 2016 election millennial voters voted in favor of Clinton over Trump by a margin of 2 to 1... that isn't imagination. That gap was the widest of any generation (most others were closer to a 50/50 split, with some favoring of Trump amongst Boomers and the Silent generation... but the skew was not that drastic).

Then in 2018 the millennial generation also skewed dramatically to the left.

Come 2020 that generation will be the largest living generation... larger than gen x, larger than gen z (who will still be mostly younger than 18)... and larger than the boomer generation as well.

Their voting rate doubled in 2018... also a fact based on data. It is unlikely that folks who voted in 2018 will suddenly not vote in 2020.

My perspective on this is based on data... yours appears to be based on feelings and a "sense of history" that somehow ignores data from 2016 and 2018 voting trends.

I've got news for you... whatever happened in 1989 is more or less irrelevant.

Way to miss the entire point of what I was saying, Artie. Wow! You really have a gift for missing the forest for the trees.

Misses all over the place. So what if the latest golden group is millenials. It makes no difference. Way back when it was the blacks. Then it was the hispanics. Now it is millenials. As Conan said geography and age tend to trump demography. I've looked at the data Arty. It looks just like the data for the past 30 years. Though 2 to 1 is a bit low for most of these estimates.

"It is unlikely that folks who voted in 2018 will suddenly not vote in 2020."

Actually that happens all the time. Look at Obama/Romney. Voter turn out in general was way down on both sides. Plenty of other elections are like that. When you have an incumbent like Trump you tend to have lower voter turnout than when both candidates are new. Such things tend to hit Democrats harder than Republicans. There is just more variation in Democrat turnout than in Republican.

Conan Says:

"Way to miss the entire point of what I was saying, Artie. Wow! You really have a gift for missing the forest for the trees."

You are the one who missed the entire point of the article I posted.

You are likely to be wrong in your assessment.

Also, I feel it necessary to remind you:

This is the problem with many in your generation... you have not learned to argue or debate based on facts and evidence, merely to cast aspersions based on feelings.

Ben,

It makes an enormous difference.

The demographics I am talking about in this case are not cultural or static.

"As Conan said geography and age tend to trump demography."

You guys are stuck in an antiquated past because you are ignoring critically important information.

The demographics I am talking about are extremely robust because we are talking about age related demographics.

The spike in voter turn out amongst millennials in 2018 isn't likely yo go away because the next election they will be even older and *more* likely to vote.

You are very confused on this point if you think this is in any way the same as race related demographic predictions.

It isn't even close to the same thing.

The millennial generation wasn't going to have an ~20% voter turn out forever. Last election they hit ~40%... those folks aren't just going to disappear next election because their motivations are exactly the same as they were in 2018.

I don't get the feeling that you really understand what is going on, but like I said, earmark this conversation and we can do a post mortem in 2020.

If you end up being incorrect will you admit it?

Unlike you Arty I've been quite willing to admit when I am wrong. But good luck to you. I expect you will need it.

Ben,

I've yet to see you admit to making an error or being incorrect even when the evidence was overwhelming.

In any event, we'll earmark this discussion for after the 2020 election and see.

Look around Arty. It isn't like it is a rare occurrence. But enough about you pushing your failings onto others. And I won't even ask about you admitting you are wrong. That would never happen. So lets move on to more productive questions.

Do you actually think a single event is enough to prove your point? Is Trump losing reelection enough evidence to validate your theory? Is Trump getting reelected enough to invalidate it?

Personally I think Trump has a very good chance of getting reelected. But I also recognize a decent chance that won't happen. And that has nothing to do with demographics. So what level of evidence is required to prove or disprove your pet theory?

The demographics I am talking about are extremely robust because we are talking about age related demographics.

And age is static? [see below]

The spike in voter turn out amongst millennials in 2018 isn't likely yo go away because the next election they will be even older and *more* likely to vote.

Precisely, they'll be even older.

"If a man looks at the world when he is 50 the same way he looked at it when he was 20 and it hasn’t changed, then be has wasted 30 years of his life." ~ Muhammad Ali

No one's arguing that the Millennials aren't getting older. The argument is that they won't necessarily vote in the same patterns they did when they were four years younger; that is, in getting older, they'll be more likely to vote to maintain the status quo, instead of voting to overturn it.

Artie, I've been analyzing data and market trends for over 20 years now. And I'm good at it. One thing I've learned in that time is that your conclusions are not what get you in trouble. The assumptions underlying those conclusions are. And your underlying assumption is that Millennials, who voted Democrat in 2016, will vote the same way in 2020. That's the Achille's Heel of your conclusion. You've left no room for them getting older and changing their perspective.

The leading edge of the Millennial generation is turning 40. They're moving to the suburbs and buying houses in greater numbers than they were in 2016. Those urban renter issues that motivated them in their early 30s will be in the past.

They're having children and saving for college. They're moving up the corporate ladder. They're starting their own businesses. They're getting a handle on their student loan payments. The economy is going well. They now have a stake in the status quo. They're soccer moms now.

The 2018 mid-term cannot be used as a bellwether for the next presidential election. For one thing, the Democrats ran to the middle in that election. So far, they're running to the left for 2020.

We will have to wait until November 2020 to see if Millennials vote in the same numbers and patterns as they did in 2016. There's a lot of chronological real estate between then and now. Things change, as do attitudes and circumstances. We'll see, but I don't think the Dems can count on those demographics handing them the election they way they seem to be.

Ben,

I've demonstrated on multiple occasions that you are an out and out liar and you failed to acknowledge it despite me linking the evidence from your contradictory statements right in from of your face... so please cut the crap and act like a mature adult for once in your life, okay?

"Do you actually think a single event is enough to prove your point? Is Trump losing reelection enough evidence to validate your theory? Is Trump getting reelected enough to invalidate it?"

Ben... you aren't paying attention to my argument so please take a deep breath and read the following carefully.

1 - The 2018 election has already demonstrated a significant shift in the voting patterns for an entire generation of folks who consistently vote on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

2 - My point is that the 2020 election is very likely to see a repeat of that event because those same folks are just as politically energized as before and their motivations have not changed.

That is all there is to it, this isn't all that complicated to understand.

Conan,

If we agree that the millennial generation is likely to vote in even greater numbers come 2020 then what exactly is the disconnect here?

Apparently you agree with me already.

"The argument is that they won't necessarily vote in the same patterns they did when they were four years younger; that is, in getting older, they'll be more likely to vote to maintain the status quo, instead of voting to overturn it."

First off it is 2 years Conan, not 4... we are talking about the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 election.

Secondly, in the 2018 election the millennial generation split roughly 60% and 40% in terms of progressive versus conservative association:

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations/

A 2 year time span isn't going to change a delta of 20 percentage points... that would be unheard of.

A 60/40 split is enormous in terms of political affiliation. By comparison both boomers and gen Xers are roughly 50/50 and they are much more than 2 years older than the average millennial.

Furthermore, if you really believe that millennial voters are looking to maintain the status quo then I really have to question your understanding of that generation as a whole. I think you are missing the mark big time here.

"Artie, I've been analyzing data and market trends for over 20 years now. And I'm good at it."

Great... I analyze data for a living as well and I'm good at it.

I accurately predicted that Trump was a viable candidate despite many many many folks presuming he didn't have a chance for example.

I also accurately predicted that the 2018 midterm election would skew left... and it did.

I am essentially batting 1000 in my general predictions for the last 20 years.

So let's put real and tangible predictions on the table here Conan.

What is your best prediction for the outcome for the 2020 election?

There is no need to fight, just write out a concrete prediction and we'll see if it comes to pass.

My prediction is simple... the millennial generation will vote at a rate at or greater than 38% and their overall voting will skew largely progressive with a proportion greater than 57% in favor of progressive candidates.

Done... what is your prediction?

Conan,

If we agree that the millennial generation is likely to vote in even greater numbers come 2020 then what exactly is the disconnect here?

Apparently you agree with me already.

"The argument is that they won't necessarily vote in the same patterns they did when they were four years younger; that is, in getting older, they'll be more likely to vote to maintain the status quo, instead of voting to overturn it."

First off it is 2 years Conan, not 4... we are talking about the 2018 election and the upcoming 2020 election.

Secondly, in the 2018 election the millennial generation split roughly 60% and 40% in terms of progressive versus conservative association:

pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations

A 2 year time span isn't going to change a delta of 20 percentage points... that would be unheard of.

A 60/40 split is enormous in terms of political affiliation. By comparison both boomers and gen Xers are roughly 50/50 and they are much more than 2 years older than the average millennial.

Furthermore, if you really believe that millennial voters are looking to maintain the status quo then I really have to question your understanding of that generation as a whole. I think you are missing the mark big time here.

"Artie, I've been analyzing data and market trends for over 20 years now. And I'm good at it."

Great... I analyze data for a living as well and I'm good at it.

I accurately predicted that Trump was a viable candidate despite many many many folks presuming he didn't have a chance for example.

I also accurately predicted that the 2018 midterm election would skew left... and it did.

I am essentially batting 1000 in my general predictions for the last 20 years.

So let's put real and tangible predictions on the table here Conan.

What is your best prediction for the outcome for the 2020 election?

There is no need to fight, just write out a concrete prediction and we'll see if it comes to pass.

My prediction is simple... the millennial generation will vote at a rate at or greater than 38% and their overall voting will skew largely progressive with a proportion greater than 57% in favor of progressive candidates.

Done... what is your prediction?

Conan,

Why am I not surprised that the moment someone asks you to put your money where your mouth is and make a specific prediction that can turn out to be right or wrong... suddenly crickets.

I've got news for you... folks who are actually good at analyzing market trends and data are good because they make accurate predictions of the future.

That is what it means to be good at analyzing trends, to be able to predict future points of data based on the previous ones.

Otherwise you are just good at making graphs of things that have already happened... but that isn't data analysis, that is data entry.