Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Millennial Problem (and the Democrats')

|

After easily winning the youth vote in 2004, 2008, and 2012, Democrats are taking millennials for granted. And polls taken earlier this year show that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Dem standard-bearer, will easily trounce either Gov. Chirs Christie or Sen. Rand Paul Paul in 2016.

But such triumphalism about Clinton and the Democratic stranglehold on younger voters is premature, to say the least. While there's no question that the GOP has managed to alienate millennials, there's every reason to believe that top Democrats are doing just about everything they can to squander their currently commanding advantage.

That's from a Daily Beast column I wrote a couple of days ago. Some of the signs include the fact that Obama actually lost to Romney among 18, 19, and 20 year olds in 2012 (click through to col for exact totals) and folks such as Rand Paul are tacking hard to the libertarian side of things of late (see, for instance, the difference between his response to Ferguson and Clinton's).

As the recent Reason-Rupe poll of millennials showed, millennials are less partisan than older voters and despite huge (and declining) support for Barack Obama at the polls, the kids are getting tired of both parties. They absolutely hate the GOP in its current incarnation, but they are also souring on Team Blue as well. Fully 34 percent of 18-29 year-old voters call themselves true independents, meaning they don't lean toward Republicans or Democrats. That compares to just 11 percent on non-leaning independents among voters 30 years old and up. 

The great political achievement of the 21st century so far has been to alienate young voters from the two major parties in the U.S. And the great task for both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 will be to figure out how to woo them back.

Read the whole thing at the Beast.

NEXT: Are Low-Skilled Immigrants Good for the Economy?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I know Reason reruns posts on the weekends, but when the topic is millennials it becomes redundant in the extreme.

    1. Are you saying they’re redundant? That they repeat themselves? That they say the same things over and over?

      1. +1 Dr. Crane

        1. Like millennials know that name…

          1. Sometimes you wanna go
            Where nobody knows your name
            And they don’t care whether you came

  2. Alt text: “One of 17 celebrity couples with ZERO on-screen chemistry.”

  3. It’s actually a great picture of Hillary because it captures her in a typically insincere moment.

    Her exaggerated, demonic smile is what she believes fun, warm, and accessible looks like. She couldn’t be a regular person with all the Metamucil in the world. This is why I’ve never been worried about the possibility of President Hillary.

    1. Al Gore is a thousand times more robotic than Hillary, and he was almost President.

      1. Hillary isn’t robotic – robotic would be an improvement in her case. Hillary is shrill and humorless.

    2. Excellent comment, FSJ. But look at Obama. His expression is less sincere than Hillary’s. And look at those mugs (the beer, not the faces). They’re full. Did either of them actually DRINK any of it?

      1. The rules are different for Obama because of white guilt. If Obama was entirely white, he’d have gotten nowhere.

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised if those were fake beer glasses filled with plastic, especially the way Hillary is waving her’s around.

        1. The way Hillary is waving what around?

    3. This is precisely why you should worry about President Hillary in 2016

  4. I’m pretty sure I already commenting on this post once.

  5. Young people are totally going to turn out for an old, fat, ugly baby boomer who scolds and nags them.

    1. When the “old, fat, ugly baby boomer” is the candidate all their favorite celebs are telling them to vote for, I wouldn’t be surprised if young people do exactly that.

      1. LOL

        Some people, including you apparently, think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity. They can’t. They may well try, but they’ll fail.

        1. think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity

          Michael Moore.

          1. I see your bid and raise you a Lena Dunham.

            1. What’s Obama, chopped liver?

          2. think that the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity.

            Barack Obama.

        2. the media can turn a piece of shit into a beloved celebrity.

          The gossip press is full of pieces of shit that are beloved celebrities, at least to enough people to keep them in the news and fabulously wealthy.

          Christ, they turned Obama, a done-nothing Chicago apparatchik, into a beloved celebrity. What more proof do you need?

          1. There has to be some base material to work with. Usually it ‘hotness’, eye candy or sometimes a complete train wreck – neither makes people love the celeb, btw, it just draws their attention.

            And Obama is clearly a very skilled con man – skills which Hillary has never demonstrated. Yes the media pushed him higher than he ever would have got on his own, but he still has some skills.

            1. He doesn’t have any skills. Separated from a teleprompter he’s an utterly clumsy speaker, and fairly boring even with one (that head tilt, turn, tilt, turn back progression gets old real quick). He obviously has zero administrative skills, and his campaign is run by other people. The MSM handles his PR for free.

              He’s a man who gave one ‘good’ speech at the 2004 DNC convention during a historically easy Senate campaign, and rode that along with his melanin levels to the presidency. I remember one of the Sunday talk show personas in 2007 mentioning that, despite the fact he had very little political experience (two years in the Senate), Obama had to run for 2008 rather than wait, because fresh-faced phenoms like him have a short shelf life. I laughed about it then, but now I cry.

              1. All he needed was the political springboard of one good speech. After that, his rock-star talents sprayed him with Teflon. His good looks, athleticism (can you imagine Dick Cheney bouncing around shirtless in the Hawaiian surf with his heart surgery scars?), and public speaking abilities make up for his zerotasticness. The thing with gifts like that is that they make his EVERY utterance, every appearance, every sneeze into a veritable Sermon on the Mount.

                Hillary has a few things to work with — her vagina and her association with Bill — but she doesn’t have the kind of gifts that make her every act a step closer to a lo-fo-vo’s heart.

                And I have just invented a word: lofovo. Low-information voter.

                1. Good looks? Can’t judge. Looks like an ordinary guy to me, not the type that women go crazy for. Romney had better looks to be honest.

                  Athleticism? Did you see him throw out the first pitch at the All Star Game? We’ve been told he’s a good basketball player but no independent evidence of that.

                  Public speaking abilities? Are you serious? Again, even Romney was better there. By a lot. And he wasn’t that great.

                  Now, through the filter of what the MSM lets people see, he looks like all three, but let’s not confuse that with reality.

                  1. There’s obviously a lot of subjectivity here. I think you actually had to use your brain to appreciate Romney’s looks and speaking abilities while Obama had a way of stunning people’s brains and then stealing their hearts.

                    In the end, you can go by the results.

                    1. Obama had a way of stunning people’s brains and then stealing their hearts.

                      Yes, by being black and talking about hope and change and ending the war, and not being Bush.

                    2. Let’s put it this way. If Obama had lost to Hillary in 2008, and Hillary had gone on to win two terms, do you think Obama would have been able to credibly run in 2016?

                      No. F-ing. Way.

                    3. Obama may not have even been able to hold his Senate seat in 2010. What a joke.

                    4. Let’s put it this way. If Obama had lost to Hillary in 2008, and Hillary had gone on to win two terms, do you think Obama would have been able to credibly run in 2016?

                      Hell to the no, but that’s largely my point. If Obama had been ANY of fat, white, old, or boring, he would have lost to Hillary in a landslide. What allowed him to overcome that landslide was sheer magic.

              2. He’s a man who gave one ‘good’ speech at the 2004 DNC convention during a historically easy Senate campaign, and rode that along with his melanin levels to the presidency.

                Oh come on… The guy has other qualifications for office, like not being Hillary Clinton.

                He did get one hell of a windfall though, since it was obvious that who ever ran as the republican nominee after the GWB regime was going to end up on a milk carton next to Fritz Monday.

                -jcr

            2. And Obama is clearly a very skilled con man – skills which Hillary has never demonstrated.

              No he’s not. Obama never really said or did anything remarkable. Almost everything glosing and positive about him has been imbued upon him by the media.

      2. She couldn’t even beat Barry Obama. I one term Senator with zero experience (which is showing BTW).

        I do not fear the Hildabeast.

        1. I’m sure 2016 will disappoint me, but I have little doubt that it will surprise me, regardless of who wins. The only usual suspect mentioned around here that would surprise me is Rand Paul.

          1. Reread my comment — s/b “I certainly doubt it will surprise me”

      3. When the “old, fat, ugly baby boomer” is the candidate all their favorite celebs are telling them to vote for, I wouldn’t be surprised if young people do exactly that.

        My unscientific survey concludes that older white women will turn out for her in droves that swamp other demographics.

        1. Not sure if that’s going to work. Romney and McCain both won older white women.

  6. Dude makes a lot of sense. Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  7. they are also souring on Team Blue as well

    It was inevitable when Millenials found out they were expected to pay for the free health care and the whisper-promised student loan forgiveness never materialized.

    1. The ‘kids’ ie 18-mid 20 year olds that I encounter have mostly come to realize that ‘higher education’ is a scam and basically worthless. Some of them feel compelled to go through the motions to get the credential, but a lot don’t.

      The optimist in me thinks that a paradigm shift away from the post Vietnam education-paternalism paradigm is begining.

      1. I don’t know. The first requirement for any decent office job is still a college degree.

        1. The first requirement for any decent office job

          There are not decent office jobs available to 18 to 25 year olds. Degree or no degree.

          Better off to get certified to install air conditioners or drive a truck.

          1. That’s excellent advice. Unfortunately most of the middle class will send their kids to college. There’s a ridiculous stigma about forgoing college in order to learn a well paying trade.

      2. You get to live away from home for free and party, drink, and fuck every night. The ability to get a job afterward would just be gravy.

        That’s how they think until the student loan payments come due… then it’s Occupy time.

        1. You just described my college experience exactly. Plus I learned to play pool.

          1. EVERY NIGHT???? I assume you stayed for your Master’s. Then your PhD.

          2. I eschewed their lifestyle during those times, preferring to explore the unknown possibilities of existence, practice chastity, build up my STTNG tape collection, and play Killer Instinct from late afternoon till dusk. And now they work for me…. and I will make them pay for what they’ve done.

            1. god you’re a fucking idiot

            2. practice chastity, build up my STTNG tape collection

              You don’t have to mention both of those in the sentence. Building up your STTNG collection implies chastity.

  8. “ALS Association withdraws controversial applications to trademark ‘ice bucket challenge’

    “We’ve received several messages regarding the trademark applications we filed. We filed for these trademarks in good faith as a measure to protect the Ice Bucket Challenge from misuse after consulting with the families who initiated the challenge this summer. However, we understand the public’s concern and are withdrawing the trademark applications. We appreciate the generosity and enthusiasm of everyone who has taken the challenge and donated to ALS charities.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ng-to-try/

    1. They wouldn’t grant my patent on my marvelous invention “water”, either!

  9. So … the GOP can sweep … SWEEP … millennials by nominating an extreme social conservative, whose US Senate website tells voters in his state he will do everything he can to ban all abortions at conception, at whatever level of government he can … while saying the opposite to “outside” voters. YEAH!

    Meanwhile, who stole Nick Gillespie and replaced him with a robotic broken record?

    The tiny number of comments here shows how many libertarians give a shit about Nick’s obsession. There MAY be hope yet!

    1. Welcome back Mike/Mary! You add a wonderful, crazy flavor to this place!

      I swear I would at least attempt to substantially engage you, if I could ever understand any of your posts. Probably best, for me at least, that I do not. Some crazy can actually rub off.

      1. Which is the greatest threat to libertarianism:
        a) Personal insults, feverish conspiracy theories, and shooting the messenger?
        b) Documenting all proof from original sources (as taught in high school)?

      2. if I could ever understand any of your posts.

        I’ll TRY dumbing it down to your level

        nominating an extreme social conservative, whose US Senate website tells voters in his state he will do everything he can to ban all abortions at conception, at whatever level of government he can … while saying the opposite to “outside” voters.”

        – He’s an extreme social conservative.
        – His Senate website, for Kentucky voters, is the opposite of what he claims elsewhere.
        – Website says abortion is a state issue (except when it’s not)
        – Website ALSO brags that he sponsored a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortion. (lol)
        – Promises to do all he can to ban abortions at ANY level of government – which is like red meat to the Christian Caliphate.

        Thus his “federalism” is a fraud at two levels. It’s States Rights, not Federalism. He promises to ignore Federalism (if needed). ie fraudulent (like his dad)

        it’s all moot because, of course, he can’t possibly get the GOP nomination. MANY are working together to block the faux libertarian from damaging our movement. like so-cons destroyed the GOP.

        You may now join the gang of thugs trying to suppress the truth with insults, lies, rage and wacky conspiracies. I LOVE baiting goobers ? who REFUSE to acknowledge what the website clearly says. To thugs, facts are secondary to suppression. See for yourself:

        http://www.paul.senate.gov
        (Click Sanctity of Life under Issues)

        Clear enough.

    2. Hi Mary. We were wondering when you’d show up.

      1:11

      Who won the pool?

      1. Some focus on insults and feverish conspiracy theories.
        Some link to proof. (yawn)

        This is what Rand Paul tells Kentucky voters:

        http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
        (If redirected to home page, see “Sanctity of Life” under Issues)

        1) Abortion should be a state issue (despite the constitution)
        2) But also sponsored Federal ban on all abortion!
        3) Doesn’t care what level of government bans abortion. (Faux Federalism?)

        1. But what does he think about gamboling?
          The world must know!

          1. But what does he think about gamboling?

            It is rumored that he and his wife do it together.

        2. Odd, how here you take every opportunity to bag on Reason and the Pauls while here, yet on your FB page you have all 3 listed as favorites.

          Bette Drake Stoneware Pottery, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, Light Magic Event Photography, Your Web Marketing Coach, Berea, Ohio Historical Society, Economic Freedom, Senator Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Governor Scott Walker, John Dennis for Congress, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Obama is the Worst President in US History, Support A Soldier, NeoSmart Technologies, Ron White – Official Site, Dalai Lama, Larry The Cable Guy, Lewis Black, Mark Twain, The Onion, Ayn Rand, The Wall Street Journal, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, Citizens United, FEE, Justin Amash, The Cato Institute, Thomas Jefferson, Peter Schiff, Rasmussen Reports, Reason Magazine, Justin Amash, John Stossel, Ron Paul, Jane A Marting-Miller, Licensed Real Estate Agent, Jane A. Marting Miller-Clint Williams Realty Inc., Mike Hihn: CrossLoop Expert in Web Development, SEO, Trainiing

          Also odd how your other writing bears no resemblance to what you post here.

          You are Mary Stack, attempting to pull another Jason Godesky.

          Tell you what, “Mike”, if that really is your name. If you are in fact the real Michael Hihn, go in and modify your favorites on this FB page to prove it.

          1. Look, Mike is old. He had to hire an AOL employee at $50 an hour for eight hours just to set up his facebook page as it is now.

            He can’t just go around dropping a grand just to change his facebook favorites and prove that he’s not a mental deficient who has single-handedly convinced several hundred Reasonoids of the necessity of concealed carry in practice, not just theory.

            1. Knarf Yentab.
              Thanks for sharing your feeeeeelings. Do you have anything substantive to say on the issue? ANY issue?

              1. Do you have anything substantive to say on the issue? ANY issue?

                Tell us about culture, Mary!

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726327

                1. Tell us about culture, Mary!

                  Okay, first, check with your fellow libertarian KGBers. The Mary conspiracy theory has collapsed.

                  Now your request

                  The anti-gummint purists are too extreme for AYN RAND!!

                  (emphasis added)

                  “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society?the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established.It would not work today”

                  The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 15. Ayn Rand (1964)

                  In today’s language, “First we must change the culture.”

                  Who tells the anti-gummint purists?

          2. Did you check the link provided?

          3. Francisco D’Anconia,

            Umm, does Rand Paul’s Senate web page confirm what I said? And if so, would most rational beings conclude you are “shooting the mesesenger?”

            Same answer as last time. I cannot find that Friends list. If you would tell me how to find it, I’ll correct it. Or just keep whining.

            On what logic” do you conclude that I bag on Reason? I’ve been reading it since (IIRC) its second year as a glossy. I do bag on Gillespie for the laughable nonsense of a libertarian era, and everything tied to that. So all you’ve ever seen me bag (at Reason) is Nick. Sorry.

            As for wacky conspiracies (and your investigatory “skills”)

            1) My “other writing” you compare was all written in the 1990s! (lol) Anyone may confirm your attack at the following link.
            http://www.LibertyIssues.com

            But why let roof and evidence interrupt a feverish conspiracy?

            2) Even if you had somehow proven I am not Mike Hihn, by what “logic” do you conclude my name is “Mary” — but it’s not the same wacky conspiracy? Why Mary???

            Does Rand Paul’s Senate web page confirm what I said? Is my entire website from the 1990s? (A few updates 2002-2005? But why let facts interrupt a feverish conspiracy?

          4. Francisco,

            Here’s a chance to show off your investigative skills. Simply give us a link to anything I’ve posted directly to Facebook in …. ohhh …. 2-3 years. (lol)

            “Directly” does not include comments posted to other sites and linked to FB.

            Thanks for your diligence.

            1. Look Mary, there is a link to Michael Hihn’s FB page, the page I cite, in my original post.

              But here it is again.

              If you’re who you claim you’ll have no trouble changing something on it and you’ll have my apologies. Until then, you’re Mary Stack.

              1. Francisco (sic),
                I answered your questions. Simple human decency. Try it.

                Does Rand Paul’s Senate web page (Sanctity of Life) confirm what I said? Yes or no?

                1. I don’t care what you said or what the web page says. I’ve listened to enough of your inane babbling. I give you a link to your own FB page and for some reason, you can’t change it.

                  That either makes you a moron, or an imposter.

                  Imma say the latter. Mary.

                  1. Can’t understand how to read his own Facebook page and below can’t understand Solomon’s Grundy’s post or how to read the webpage Grundy linked to, both a Moron and Mary.

                  2. Francisco d’Anconia|8.30.14 @ 8:49PM|#
                    …”Imma say the latter. Mary.”

                    Frank,
                    You’ll notice the CLAIM that your questions have been answered, when they obviously haven’t been; lie, with innuendo of ‘win’.
                    And then we get “Simple human decency” as if that had anything to do with any comments yet made, hinting at moral standing where none exists.
                    Dunno if it’s Mary, but it’s someone well practiced in slimy efforts to mislead.

                    1. Check out some of “Hihn”‘s posts here.
                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..e-porn-law

                      Seems a lot like Mary. Bolded posts bitching about how HnR’ers are stalkers?

                    2. Winston|8.30.14 @ 9:56PM|#
                      “Check out some of “Hihn”‘s posts here.
                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..e-porn-law
                      Seems a lot like Mary. Bolded posts bitching about how HnR’ers are stalkers?”

                      I’m going to eat my hat in that link, I relied on HM’s comments and never saw the denial myself.
                      I’m not saying HM was wrong, nor that the person posting as Hihn is other than accused.
                      I’m saying I was wrong to make the statement without direct evidence. A very specific retraction.

                    3. Two Goobers — Sevo & Winston — discussing a web page that does not exist! (OMFG) Click the link that Sevo says it read!!!

                      Winston|8.30.14 @ 9:56PM|#
                      “Check out some of “Hihn”‘s posts here.
                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..e-porn-law

                      Sevo|8.31.14 @ 12:06AM
                      Seems a lot like Mary. Bolded posts bitching about how HnR’ers are stalkers?”

                      (I love baiting goobers)

                    4. Turd.Burglar.

                    5. (laughing)
                      JPyrate is another thug who attacks without looking at the proof.
                      Or JPyrate looked and is a liar.

                      Does it matter which?

                    6. Two Goobers — Sevo & Winston — discussing a web page that does not exist! (OMFG) Click the link that Sevo says it read!!!

                      He is quoting me and the link I provide does work you Moron.

                    7. Replay requested
                      Two Goobers — Sevo & Winston — discussing a web page that does not exist! (OMFG) Click the link that Sevo says it read!!!

                      Winston|8.30.14 @ 9:56PM|#
                      “Check out some of “Hihn”‘s posts here.
                      https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..e-porn-law

                      Sevo|8.31.14 @ 12:06AM
                      Seems a lot like Mary. Bolded posts bitching about how HnR’ers are stalkers?”

                      (I love baiting goobers)

                      Winston|8.31.14 @ 4:22PM|#

                      He is quoting me and the link I provide does work you Moron.

                      (OMG)Click the link!
                      Your bluff called, chump. (lol)

                      404
                      The webpage cannot be found.
                      What you can try:

                      Retype the address
                      Go back to the previous page
                      Search using this form:

                      Uh-Oh. Psycho exposed.
                      Again (snicker)

                      If anyone gives a fig, they’ll click Winston’s link. If not … (yawn)

                    8. It’s Mary.

                      She said something about my handle the other day that was nearly identical to something she said as Rectal Fly over 3 years ago.

                  3. Francisco (sic),
                    I answered your questions. Simple human decency. Try it.

                    Third Request:
                    Does Rand Paul’s Senate web page (Sanctity of Life) confirm what I said? Yes or no?

                    Why do you lie about the Favorites page?

                    1. I don’t care Mary!

                      How am I lying? You can’t modify your own FB page?

                    2. Mary apparently doesn’t know how read the Favorites section on Facebook. She could be lying but considering her replies to Solomon Grundy below she may very well be that stupid.

                    3. Winston|8.30.14 @ 10:24PM|#
                      “Mary apparently doesn’t know how read the Favorites section on Facebook. She could be lying but considering her replies to Solomon Grundy below she may very well be that stupid.”

                      The stupidity is merely a hope that an audience (not the commenters) bleeve the stated bullshit rather than any sort of cited info.
                      The liar trueman does the same; bald statements absent cites in the hopes that anyone wandering on to a statement will take it at face value.
                      Whoever this dolt is, s/he simply tossed in irrelevant links, again hoping some audience will find *that* convincing without checking the content of the links .
                      As mentioned elsewhere, the poster claiming to be MH is clever enough to fool the average low-info voter and I’m sure that’s enough to make him or her happy.

                    4. You can’t modify your own FB page?

                      Umm, it doesn’t say what you claim it does. Give us all a link. (lol)

                      Does Rand Paul’s Senate web page (Sanctity of Life) confirm what I said? Yes or no?

                      I don’t care Mary!

                      So why the lengthy hissy fit? (lol)

                      Anyone who gives a shit, can see what you’re doing here.

                      http://hihn.us/Y2tBwo

                    5. Turd.Burglar.

                    6. Michael Hihn|8.30.14 @ 10:09PM|#
                      “Third Request:”

                      THIRD ATTEMPT AT AVOIDING AN ANSWER!
                      Stupid; hoping no one noticed, but about par for the idjit.

                    7. THIRD ATTEMPT AT AVOIDING AN ANSWER!

                      (snicker) To what?
                      Here’s an answer you dare not see, loser.

                      http://hihn.us/Y2tBwo

                    8. Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:02AM|#
                      “(snicker) To what?”

                      Forth attempt to avoid answer.
                      You can’t possibly believe people here don’t see you pile of bullshit, do you?

                    9. Forth attempt to avoid answer.

                      (snicker) An answer to WHAT?
                      Here again is the answer that scares you?

                      http://hihn.us/Y2tBwo

                    10. Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:20AM|#
                      “(snicker) An answer to WHAT?”

                      Fifth attempt to avoid answer.
                      Who do you think is fooled?

                    11. Fifth attempt to avoid answer.

                      Answer to what?

                  4. Watch the chickenshit fear the truth. (lol)

                    http://hihn.us/Y2tBwo

                    1. Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:22AM|#
                      “Watch the chickenshit fear the truth. (lol)”

                      6th attempt.

                    2. Watch the chickenshit fear the truth. (lol)

                      Yep. (LMAO)

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726327

                      Dance for me, monkey!

                  5. I give you a link to your own FB page and for some reason, you can’t change it.

                    (snicker) You fucked up again.

                    1) There are no Favorites at Facebook
                    2) There are Likes and Other Likes.
                    3) You linked to the Home page, which is the wrong page.
                    4) The correct page is the About page.

                  6. Now Francisco admits his lengthy hissy fit is a personal attack.

                    Francisco d’Anconia|8.30.14 @ 8:49PM|#
                    I don’t care what you said or what the web page says

                    Umm, so what did he begin attacking here:

                    Francisco d’Anconia|8.30.14 @ 2:32PM|#

                    Next, he reveals his true motive. I provided proof that Rand is an extreme so-con, with two different stories (in state and elsewhere), and linked his Senate website as proof.

                    The bullying escalated. I began asking if Rand’s website proves my point. He kept attacking. I kept asking ? until he flipped. Back to the cite above..

                    I don’t care what you said or what the web page says

                    Hold that thought. Next sentence.

                    I’ve listened to enough of your inane babbling.

                    SEE! He doesn’t care what I say, doesn’t care if it’s proven … whatever I did is inane babbling … and he WILL bully and attack!

                    All because I can prove Rand is an extreme so-com, pushing fake federalism with different stories in KY sand elsewhere. Well, the libertarian KGB was enraged.

                    I held back a “smoking gun” — Rand’s abortion page is titled “Sanctity of Life” ? which aligns him solidly with the Christian Caliphate.

                    Click “Sanctity of Life” under “Issues.”

                    http://www.paul.senate.gov

              2. The Goober is challenged:
                Here’s a chance to show off your investigative skills. Simply give us a link to anything I’ve posted directly to Facebook in …. ohhh …. 2-3 years. (lol) “Directly” does not include comments posted to other sites and linked to FB. Thanks for your diligence.”

                Francisco d’Anconia|8.30.14 @ 7:02PM|#

                Look Mary, there is a link to Michael Hihn’s FB page, the page I cite, in my original post.

                Another FAIL. STILL no postings dated within the past 2-3 years. (sigh)

                A. Here is the screenshot of your “Favorites” page as of this afternoon (in powerpoint) clearly showing Reason and both Pauls. (lol)

                Another FAIL As I said repeatedly, that’s not the home page you linked to — so now everyone can confirm THIS fuckup, chump. (lol)

                I LOVE baiting goobers.

                1. so now everyone can confirm THIS fuckup, chump.

                  Click here for Mary Stack’s fuckup when she gets quoted word for word:

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726327

                  Dance for me, monkey!

                  1. Red Rocks Rockin|8.31.14 @ 3:13PM|
                    Click here for Mary Stack’s fuckup when she gets quoted word for word

                    Sorry, your childish Mary conspiracy has been demolished.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..nt_4740579

                    It’s cute how you thugs run in packs, like wild dogs. (sigh)

          5. Tell you what, “Mike”, if that really is your name. If you are in fact the real Michael Hihn, go in and modify your favorites on this FB page to prove

            One more time.
            1) There are no Favorites at Facebook
            2) There are Likes and Other Likes.
            3) They are not at the link you provided
            4) They are at the “About” link from the home page, dumbass (lol)

            Since you also lie about Ron and Rand Paul being there, I’ll just say I changed them and see if you apologize. (lol)

            And here’s a page for everyone! (snicker)
            http://hihn.us/Y2tBwo

            1. Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:43AM|#

              7th attempt; do you really think there are those as stupid as you?
              Sorry, you’ve set the bar entirely too low.

              1. $10 Special Award!!! Anyone
                Simply show that Sevo’s latest claim is not a totally psycho lie

                Sevo|8.31.14 @ 12:50AM|#
                Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:43AM|#

                7th attempt; do you really think there are those as stupid as you?

                Simply paste the screen headers — My name and the timestamp — for my comments that it’s “talking” about. You don’t even need seven. Five will do. (snicker)

            2. A. Here is the screenshot of your “Favorites” page as of this afternoon (in powerpoint) clearly showing Reason and both Pauls. (lol)

              B. Here is the current link to “FAVORITES” on your facebook page showing the change.

              You have obviously changed it. So, I apologize for wrongly accusing you of being Mary Stack. You are who you say you are.

              Instead of being a sock puppet, you truly are a condescending, incomprehensible, batshit crazy old loon who gives libertarians a black eye. Not sure which is worse, but regardless, I was wrong.

              Not sure why you didn’t simply change it and say you did rather than attempt to prove me a liar. I guess it goes to your character.

              1. Not sure why you didn’t simply change it and say you did rather than attempt to prove me a liar.

                As always, I’m toying with you. I love watching you charge around, crashing into walls, tripping over your own feet and screeching like a banshee … with your Mary conspiracy.

                Instead of being a sock puppet, you truly are a condescending, incomprehensible, batshit crazy old loon who gives libertarians a black eye.

                (laughing) That’s the apology you promised!

                First you “don’t care” what Rand Paul’s Senate web page says … NOW you deny he’s an extreme social conservative (OMG) AND a phony Federalist … both of which are proven on the website you “don’t care” about.

                If I’m concerned that an extreme social conservative would severely damage the libertarian brand … which is already rejected by 85% of libertarians … then you say it’s ME giving libertarians a black eye … but you’re helping libertarians by promoting an extreme social conservative, who’s Senate website — (that you don’t care about) … proves his “federalism” is as phony as your own libertarianism … while you continue being a stalking horse for the Santorum/Bachman crowd … as you sing, “Don’t worry, be happy”

                Did I miss anything?

                1. Turd.Burglar.

                2. Did I miss anything?

                  Yeah, your comment on culture, you dumb bitch. RFLMAO

                  1. Yeah, your comment on culture, you dumb bitch. RFLMAO

                    He thinks that makes sense.
                    The defense rests.

                    1. He thinks that makes sense.
                      The defense rests.

                      Dance for me, monkey!

                    2. Red Rocks Rockin|8.31.14 @ 1:01PM|#
                      Yeah, your comment on culture, you dumb bitch. RFLMAO

                      He thinks that makes sense.
                      The defense rests.

                      Red Rocks Rockin|8.31.14 @ 3:03PM|#

                      Dance for me, monkey!

                      Thanks for clearing that up!

                3. Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 3:20AM|#
                  “As always, I’m toying with you.”

                  Oh, good! You’re not a troll, you’re a fucking asshole!

                  1. Sevo Lies. PROOF. Film at 11 (snicker)

                    https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..nt_4740679

                    ————

                    Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 9:51AM|#

                    $10 Special Award!!! Anyone
                    Simply show that Sevo’s latest claim is not a totally psycho lie

                    Sevo|8.31.14 @ 12:50AM|#
                    Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 12:43AM|#

                    7th attempt; do you really think there are those as stupid as you?

                    Simply paste the screen headers — My name and the timestamp — for my comments that it’s “talking” about. You don’t even need seven. Five will do. (snicker)

    3. So who should we be looking at if not Rand?

      1. Gary Johnson is them only genuine candidate in 30 years.

        When Rand gets outed as an extreme social conservative and phony federalist he’ll likely destroy the movement, just as the extreme so-cons destroyed the GOP.

  10. I’ve been seeing “I’m ready for Hillary” bumper stickers in my neighborhood, so the machine is starting up.

    Speaking of being redundant, I firmly believe that once this hardcore neighborhood of lefties hears of Lizzie, they will run over to her in droves. Nobody likes Hillary; as soon as there is a viable socialist alternative, they will abandon Hillary just like in 2008.

    1. Really, REALLY: Lizzie isn’t running.

      I’m sure that attentive, Kos-reading socialists are all over the superiority of Liz over Hillary, but to the average old white vagina, the difference is that it’s Hillary’s “turn,” while Liz can afford to wait a bit.

  11. Millenials, as a generational cohort, are social justice warriors. The majority of millenials will vote reliably for the Democrat nominee. When was the last time the 18-24 year old crowd voted Republican? When was the last time they voted overwhelmingly Republican?

    1. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

      1976: Ford 51, Carter 49
      1980: Carter 45, Reagan 44, Anderson 11
      1984: Reagan 61, Mondale 39
      1988: Bush 53, Dukakis 47
      1992: Clinton 46, Bush 33, Perot 21
      1996: Clinton 55, Dole 35, Perot 11
      2000: Bush 47, Gore 47
      2004: Kerry 56, Bush 43
      2008: Obama 66, McCain 32
      2012: Obama 60, Romney 37

      1. 1992: Clinton 46, Bush 33, Perot 21

        I am the 21%
        First and last time I voted for Pres.

        That is one frightening list.

        1. GHWB was probably the best president of my lifetime. How sad is that.

      2. that’s strange — I don’t remember Kerry beating Bush.

        1. 18-24s at that time would have been the trailing edge of Gen X plus the first two years of millenials. Their will was thwarted.

          1. “18-24s at that time would have been the trailing edge of Gen X plus the first two years of millenials.”

            Nope. That’s fucking stupid and wrong.

            1. The figures aren’t for millenials exclusively, it covers the youngest voting block in each election. Starting in 2004 they switched from 18-24 to 18-29 for the youngest voting block.

              1. In 1976 and 1980 it is fact 18-21 before switching to 18-24 in 1984.

        1. No it isn’t.

          1. Solomon Grundym
            Check the link provided. Look VERY closely at the circular graph. Reagan has roughly half. Anderson takes from the other half, leaving less than half for Carter. And that’s in color; no numbers needed.

            For numbers, the National Archives

            Reagan 43,904,153
            Carter: 35,483,883
            Total: 85,107,747 (excluding independents.

            Now divide.
            Reagan 51.6% vs falsehood of 44%
            Carter 41.7% vs falsehood of 45%

            Popular winner: Reagan vs false claim Carter.

            False claim is that Carter won the popular vote with 45%
            Truth is Reagan won popular vote with 51.6%

            http://www.archives.gov/federa……html#1980

            Hence my comment (from memory) “1980 is WAY off”

            Your reply:

            No it isn’t

            Sources???

            1. Those voting numbers are 18-21 year olds, not the overall.

              1. Mary Stack is a moron, who woulda thunk?

                It’s not like “Hihn” can’t read his own facebook page, oh wait…

                1. Winston,
                  If you’d clicked the link, you wouldn’t look so silly now.

                  http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

                  It goes to Roper POLLING … for the entire electorate. (see “ropercenter” in the visible portion of the link).

                  Despite my being such a moron, I knew enough to check the National Archives. hmmm

                  1. He was clearly talking about the 18-24 year olds and linked to the site where he got the information from. So you can’t read and can’t navigate a webpage.

                    1. Winston,

                      ON THE ROPER POLLING SITE?

                      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

                      Does Rand Paul’s Senate web page (Sanctity of Life) confirm what I said? Yes or no?

                    2. NOTHING you say matters, Mary.

                    3. Winston lies again. Film at 11

                      He was clearly talking about the 18-24 year olds and linked to the site where he got the information from. So you can’t read and can’t navigate a webpage.

                      Here’s the link AGAIN, chump.

                      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

                      You REALLY don’t know Roper is a pollster???

                      Truthseekers have more proof that Winston is a shameful liar, totally devoid of any conscience, and a thug.
                      And no challenge. (snicker)

                    4. Turd.Burglar.

              2. F. Stupidity, Jr
                Those voting numbers are 18-21 year olds, not the overall.

                Thanks for clarifying. He supplied the wrong link, and to a polling site.

                1. You clearly missed the “Group Voting” section at each election page, you Moron.

                  1. You clearly missed the “Group Voting” section at each election page, you Moron

                    Do you know how to provide a link to it? (snicker)

                    1. The results for different years were scattered across several different pages, so I gave a link to the top level page, assuming the readers could figure out where the results were. If someone had asked politely where the results were I would have explained.

                    2. No need to apologize for confusing Mary Stack.

                    3. The results for different years were scattered across several different pages,

                      (laughing) I’ll call your bluff. Give us a link to ANY of those pages.
                      And there are NO such links at the link you provided which — one more time is a POLLING site. Umm Roper Polling!!!

                      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ction.html

                    4. It looks like I was wrong about you being Mary Stack. For that I apologize.

                      However I won’t apologize for calling you a Moron for that is something which your posts here amply demonstrate.

                    5. However I won’t apologize for calling you a Moron for that is something which your posts here amply demonstrate.

                      Does

                    6. However I won’t apologize for calling you a Moron for that is something which your posts here amply demonstrate

                      You DENY that Rand Paul’s website confirms everything I said … but *I* am the moron! (OMG)

                    7. Turd.Burglar.

                    8. JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:25AM|#

                      Turd.Burglar.

                      ANOTHER drive-by assassin lies about the page

                      Click “Sanctity of Life” under “Issues”
                      http://www.paul.senate.gov

                      – Rand is an extreme social conservative.
                      – His Senate website, for Kentucky voters, is the opposite of what he claims elsewhere.
                      – Website says abortion is a state issue (except when it’s not)
                      – Website ALSO brags that he sponsored a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortion. (lol)
                      – Promises to do all he can to ban abortions at ANY level of government – which is like red meat to the Christian Caliphate.
                      – Page is titled “Sanctity of Life” ALSO sucking up to the Christian Caliphate!

                      Thus his “federalism” is a fraud at two levels. It’s States Rights, not Federalism. He promises to ignore
                      Federalism (if needed). ie fraudulent (like his dad)

                      it’s all moot because, of course, he can’t possibly get the GOP nomination. The faux libertarian will be exposed before he can damage our movement, like so-cons destroyed the GOP

                      When op-ed editors across the country see the page (or the screenprint), will they suffer denial like the goobers are? (chuckle)

                    9. Winston. How does that link from the page we were sent to?

                      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ed_80.html

                    10. Turd.Burglar.

                    11. Winston (laughing)

                      You clearly missed the “Group Voting” section at each election page, you Moron

                      Do you know how to provide a link to it? (snicker)

                      (added)
                      STILL NO LINK! (omg)

                      (For those who never had a psychology course, liars at such a massive scale don’t even care how wacky they look, and how easy it is ANYONE to see the proof. It’s a subset of psychopathic disorder. Attack and assault are the only purpose of bullies).

                      All because I stated, and proved, that Rand Paul is an extreme social conservative, thus enraging the libertarian KGB. (Other than the Christian Caliphate, anyone else use the term “Sanctity of Life?” Any others at all?)

                      Click “Sanctity of Life” under “Issues”
                      http://www.paul.senate.gov

                    12. So Mary, what you’re saying is that we have to change the culture? LMAO

                    13. Winston. How does that link from the page we were sent to?

                      Really? You don’t see that it is from the same site? You are either incredibly stupid or a troll. You might not be Mary Stack but you are just as worthless.

                    14. Turd.Burglar.

      3. Until 2004, they seem to be brainless front-runners. Not that this makes them much different from any other demographic, but at least old people have enough sense to vote for politicians who help them collectively.

        We’ll see how badly millennials do if the Democrats actually do self-immolate and nominate Hillary. I suspect they’ll just follow whatever voting line Comedy Central instructs them to pursue, with most of them not bothering to vote at all once they lack a charismatic empty suit to throw their support behind.

      4. Interesting data, too bad they don’t track the data consistently each election. Track 18-14 through the 2004 election then switch to 18-29 starting in 2008. Then between 2008 and 2012 they switch reporting by income brackets.

        Regardless, over the last 10 elections the youngest voting block voted 6-3 in favor of Democrats (we’ll call Bush-Gore a draw). On average the when Democrats won the election the margin margin was +17 for the Democrat among the youngest voters. Dropping the two Clinton elections as anomalies (i.e., Perot), the Democrat break only falls to +12. If you go another step and drop the Obama elections (basically only look at Carter-Reagan and Kerry-Bush) the Democrat break drops to +4.

        On the flip side in elections won by Republicans the youngest voters only broke on average +10 for the Republican candidate. Dropping the Reagan-Mondale race drops the average break for Republicans to only +4.

        These numbers don’t appear to show much to make Republican’s happy. The youngest voting block appears more inclined to vote for the Democrat. This is especially true when the election involves breaking a long standing tradition (i.e., first black President). With the high probability of the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton or – I hope I’m wrong – Elizabeth Warren, I expect to see a repeat of the last two elections, at least in regards to the youngest voting block.

        1. “These numbers don’t appear to show much to make Republican’s happy.”

          So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in, it’s odds on that they will be rejected by younger voters, regardless of the draw of the ‘free shit’ party.
          And it’ll take some time to repair that brand, assuming they decide to.

          1. So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in

            Remind me again which actual political position you’re referring to.

            If you’re talking about gay marriage, how is that a sexual privacy concern? The same sex couples going to the state asking for a pat on the head and a piece of paper were openly telling the world about their relationship.

            If you’re talking about illegalizing separate-sex locker rooms, saunas, and bathrooms, have fun selling that to the American public. There is a limit to how much sophistry you sociorads are going to get away with.

            1. “If you’re talking about gay marriage, how is that a sexual privacy concern? The same sex couples going to the state asking for a pat on the head and a piece of paper were openly telling the world about their relationship.

              If you’re talking about illegalizing separate-sex locker rooms, saunas, and bathrooms, have fun selling that to the American public. There is a limit to how much sophistry you sociorads are going to get away with.”

              Uh, nice try; fail.
              Remind me how such religious crapola is gonna sell to anyone.
              Yeah, you and the remaining bleevers can keep spouting nonsense; hope it makes you feel good!

          2. Sevo|8.30.14 @ 9:07PM|#
            And it’ll take some time to repair that brand, assuming they decide to.

            Yeah, a Rand Paul nomination would do serious damage to the GOP brand. And the libertarian brand is already rejected by 85% of libertarians. (Cato’s 2006 Zogby Poll)

            1. Turd.Burglar.

          3. Sevo here agrees with the only issue I raised on this page! OMG!! Count his attacks on this page … for the identical position he defends (except when he doesn’t, like Obama)

            Sevo|8.30.14 @ 9:07PM|#
            So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in, it’s odds on that they will be rejected by younger voters, regardless of the draw of the ‘free shit’ party.
            And it’ll take some time to repair that brand, assuming they decide to.

            Ummm, how can the GOP “repair” its brand by nominating an extreme social conservative? And why do you stand firmly on both sided of this fence?

            Remind me how such religious crapola is gonna sell to anyone.
            Yeah, you and the remaining bleevers can keep spouting nonsense; hope it makes you feel good!

            Huh? How can other bleevers — like you — keep spouting nonsense SUPPORTING an extreme social conservative, while simultaneously ATTACKING extreme social conservatives? Might HE be Mary? (lol)

            Why is Sevo the only one allowed to be concerned about extreme social conservatives, while spewing insults all down this page at somehow who expressed a concern about … extreme social conservatives …including a link to absolute proof??

            Can you hold a consistent thought for more than a few hours? And if so, will you be doing so soon?

            1. Can you hold a consistent thought for more than a few hours? And if so, will you be doing so soon?

              Can you tell us about culture? And if so, will you be doing so soon?

              1. That’s an entirely different page, psycho. Go back to the page. You were caught red-handed, falsely combining different threads. More to be pitied than scorned. (snicker)

                Why does everyone who makes an ass of himself keep stalking me for weeks? (sigh)

                1. Michael Hihn. You are a fucking piece of work. One little ad Hom and your ginormus ego fly’s off the handle. Here is some advice. If you do not want people stalking you. Do not give them any information. Turd.Burglar.

                  1. JPyrate: Another goober!

                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:45PM|#
                    …,One little ad Hom and your ginormus ego fly’s off the handle. …

                    They’re all psycho liars and thugs. And like wild dogs they travel in packs.

                    1
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:21AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

                    2
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:23AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar
                    —–
                    3
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.
                    —-
                    4
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:25AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.
                    ———-
                    5
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

                    6
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.
                    —-
                    7

                    JPyrate|9.1.14 @ 12:00AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.
                    —-
                    (laughing)

                  2. JPyrate. Thug suppresses ideas he opposes!

                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:45PM|#
                    If you do not want people stalking you. Do not give them any information.

                    SEE? They shout down anyone who DARES to prove that Rand Paul is an EXTREME social conservative and phony federalist … with a link to prove it … which is my ONLY point on the page. Count the attacks and hissy fits. (lol).

                    JPyrate, don’t even TRY bullying me.

            2. “Why is Sevo […] spewing insults”
              Because you deserve, shitpile.

              1. The shit stain does not understand the game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_JF8oSxXtM

              2. “Why is Sevo […] spewing insults”
                Because you deserve, shitpile.

                Michael Hihn|8.31.14 @ 11:33AM|#

                NOW Sevo AGREES with the only issue I raised on this page! Count his attacks – for the SAME position he defends (except when he doesn’t)

                Sevo|8.30.14 @ 9:07PM|#
                So long as the Rs remain fascinated by who sleeps in whose bed or (in CA) what toilet little Johnny pees in, it’s odds on that they will be rejected by younger voters, regardless of the draw of the ‘free shit’ party.
                And it’ll take some time to repair that brand, assuming they decide to.

                Umm, how can the GOP “repair” its brand by nominating an extreme social conservative? And why do you stand firmly on both sided of this fence?

                Remind me how such religious crapola is gonna sell to anyone.
                Yeah, you and the remaining bleevers can keep spouting nonsense; hope it makes you feel good!

                Huh? How can other bleevers — like you — keep spouting nonsense SUPPORTING an extreme social conservative, while simultaneously ATTACKING extreme social conservatives? Might HE be Mary? (lol)

                Only the thug may be concerned about extreme social conservatives, while spewing insults all down this page at one who expressed a concern about … extreme social conservatives …including a link to absolute proof??

                Can Sevo hold a consistent thought for more than a few hours? And if so, will he be doing so soon?

                1. What a piece of work. =D

                  1. JPyrate|9.1.14 @ 1:50PM|#
                    What a piece of work. =D

                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:45PM|#
                    One little ad Hom and your ginormus ego fly’s off the handle.

                    One? Caught red-handed (again)!

                    1
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:21AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.


                    2
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:23AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar

                    —–
                    3
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

                    —-
                    4
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 10:25AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

                    ———-
                    5
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.


                    6
                    JPyrate|8.31.14 @ 11:59PM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

                    —-
                    7
                    JPyrate|9.1.14 @ 12:00AM|#

                    Turd.Burglar.

  12. And polls taken earlier this year show that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Dem standard-bearer, will easily trounce either Gov. Chirs Christie or Sen. Rand Paul Paul in 2016.

    Libertarian moment!

  13. Hilary seems to have some rather severe health issues. I’m not sure she’s going to run, or get elected.

    1. I haven’t seen anything; got a cite?

      1. I’m not sure what he’s alluding to, but remember she got out of testifying about Benghazi due to a concussion. I seem to recall another conveniently-timed health issue as well.

        1. If you listen to the chattering class in Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton is a virtual certainty for the 2016 Democratic nomination…

          Wasn’t she a virtual certainty for the 2008 Democratic nomination?

    2. She’ll be only two years younger in 2016 than Ronald Reagan was in 1980. And remember all the fun made about his supposed senility in his second term?

  14. Who comes up with all that nonsense?

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.