Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

17810121318

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    An addendum to the above:

    Twilight in referencing the 2/3 of Americans who do not go to college, said:
    many living {are] on minimum wage.

    Not true. Only 2.7% of all Americans are working for minimum wage. Most of the ones still earning minimum wage are high school students.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    ....
    That's a big if. That trickle down effect, never seems to work as well as people predict.

    .....

    (If I bang my head hard enough on a brick wall, will that stop the bleeding from ripping out my hair?)

    That's because the USA has been trying to do it by giving money to rich people and corporations for the last forty years. Trickle-down economics is bullshit and doesn't work. It will never work. Neither do tax cuts for rich people. "Trickle down" economics doesn't create wealth, it concentrates it. That was the intent and it has succeeded obscenely well.

    Giving money to middle and lower income people has a completely different economic impact. It doesn't trickle down, it spreads like ripples in a pond. How many times does it have to be repeated?

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    For eternity...

    I am *not* saying Twilight believes this, I do not want to put words in mouths, but it is so easy, given what we are told, to believe the rich have earned their largesse solely because they put in the effort. And as everyone can make it if they work hard enough, it is wrong to "punish" those who "get out and have a go".
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    For eternity...

    ". . . it is wrong to "punish" those who "get out and have a go".

    Sorry, but apparently my American is not up to this English. What does this mean?

  • In the American Myth, anyone can become a millionaire (or President, or whatever) if they work hard enough. From that follow two "truths":

    1) Anybody who is a millionaire earned all that money all through their own hard work.

    2) Anybody who isn't a millionaire isn't trying hard enough.

    From this comes the attitude Climacus is referring to: that it is wrong for the government to "steal" money from (hard working) millionaires, and even worse, to give it to (lazy) non-millionaires. Of course, every other country in the world just calls that progressive taxation, but whatever. It's the American Myth.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    ...And as everyone can make it if they work hard enough, it is wrong to "punish" those who "get out and have a go".
    In the 1950s in the United States, the average CEO made 20 times as much as average workers. Today, it's 361 times as much.

    I believe that capitalism is the best system available to us; I also believe that that statistic is obscene. We can and should do better.


  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I don't know why my name keeps coming up in every post as some sort of defender of the wealthy. I've said several times now that I'm in favor of taxing the rich and I'm in favor of free college for everyone.

    That has nothing to do with the idea that if young people don't have to pay student loans they will all run out and buy houses, get married, have children and we'll return to life as it was in 1957. Young people today are less likely to have that suburban dream. Many are choosing not to marry or purchase houses at all, they might just spend that money on travel.

    If we want to count on the money from the rich being used to help the economy, wouldn't it trickle (or ripple or spread) just as well if it was used to build housing for the homeless, hospitals for the sick, and better schools in poor districts?
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    These graphs in Slate article help show how the money would help the upper middle class most.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Climacus wrote: »
    For eternity...

    ". . . it is wrong to "punish" those who "get out and have a go".

    Sorry, but apparently my American is not up to this English. What does this mean?

    Apologies, Ohher: and others. There is a strand of thought, in Australia at least, that if you give something a try, you get up out of where you are and have a go at something, you are a better citizen than someone who sits back -- the implication being alos that anyone who wants to make it can, and if you haven't got a home, car, an investment property, etc. you aren't really trying hard enough. No thought given that some people start with disadvantage. I was trying, unsuccessfully, to parody this.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Climacus wrote: »
    ...And as everyone can make it if they work hard enough, it is wrong to "punish" those who "get out and have a go".
    In the 1950s in the United States, the average CEO made 20 times as much as average workers. Today, it's 361 times as much.
    Good grief. With you on the obscene part.

  • Twilight wrote: »
    ...

    If we want to count on the money from the rich being used to help the economy, wouldn't it trickle (or ripple or spread) just as well if it was used to build housing for the homeless, hospitals for the sick, and better schools in poor districts?

    Why not all those things as well as college debt forgiveness? And on a global scale? The 1% have squirreled away almost half the world's wealth so there's more than enough to provide the bare minimum for everybody. Ah, but that would be "dreaming too big" ....
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    (forgot to add in my reply to Ohher...the phrase I used, or one similar, was used by our current (hopefully gone in May) PM)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I don't know why my name keeps coming up in every post as some sort of defender of the wealthy. I've said several times now that I'm in favor of taxing the rich and I'm in favor of free college for everyone.
    But previously you objected to student debt forgiveness, saying
    On average, college graduates earn $1 million more in earnings over their lifetime than those without degrees. And this is the group we want to give more money to, not the 2/3 of Americans without degrees, many living on minimum wage.
    Isn’t “free college” similarly problematic? After all, it’s only going to those who will (hopefully) end up as college graduates.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Yes, it is similarly problematic but at least it is a wider plan that will benefit lower classes more. Student debt forgiveness benefits the people who had enough money to go to college in the first place, while free college for all will allow lots of very poor people to go to college. There's an element of fairness and equality in the "free for all" plan that isn't there for the "debt forgiveness" plan.

    We already have several good plans in place to help with student loans. Some very low income people, single mothers and people who became disabled after graduation can write off their loans now. Obama added quite a few debt relief plans. The loans for people with 2-4 year degrees have loans around 10,000 while the big outstanding debts are to the people with advanced degrees, so more government money will go to the people who will most likely earn the most money.


    Twilight wrote: »
    ...

    If we want to count on the money from the rich being used to help the economy, wouldn't it trickle (or ripple or spread) just as well if it was used to build housing for the homeless, hospitals for the sick, and better schools in poor districts?

    Why not all those things as well as college debt forgiveness? And on a global scale? The 1% have squirreled away almost half the world's wealth so there's more than enough to provide the bare minimum for everybody. Ah, but that would be "dreaming too big" ....

    As far as I know Elizabeth Warren hasn't proposed any of those things. It's her college plan that I brought up for discussion on this thread about presidential candidates.

    Maybe Bernie has your plan for global takeover, I haven't researched him lately.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Student debt forgiveness benefits the people who had enough money to go to college in the first place, while free college for all will allow lots of very poor people to go to college. There's an element of fairness and equality in the "free for all" plan that isn't there for the "debt forgiveness" plan.

    Um, what? Are you now claiming that student debt is incurred largely by people who have the money to go to college, and therefore don't need to borrow? What planet are you living on? And how on earth is providing free college to kids from multi-million-dollar families fairer than forgiving debt to young adults whose debt repayment schedules are double their rent?

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Even with loans it still costs money to go to college for everyone who doesn't get a full ride scholarship or grant. Some people just can't swing it, even with students loans. Totally free college will allow more of those people to go. The kids from multi-million dollar families are a very small percentage of all students, plus they will probably be going to private schools which most likely wont be on the list of government funded colleges.
    Budgeting for Student Loan Repayment. The average student leaves college with about $25,000 in student loan debt. The monthly payment on a $25,000 student loan is approximately $280.
    ---cicmoney.com
    That's with a ten year repayment plan, many people have a 20 year repayment plan. I wish rent was that cheap in our town.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The Slate article is interesting. Given this is one analysis, I would like to see more. However, it true, I agree with this statement:
    There are definitely ways Warren could make her plan more progressive. She could drop the maximum forgiveness amount to $20,000—roughly the median that borrowers have graduated school with in recent years—and wipe out the loan balances of a lot of lower income students while limiting the rewards to six-figure earners. She could exclusively forgive undergraduate loans.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Here, for the benefit of Ohher is a short video illustrating the use of the phrase "Have a go ya mug." It is from the late 1970's.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Thanks, Simon Toad and others for the explanations.
    Twilight wrote: »
    Even with loans it still costs money to go to college for everyone who doesn't get a full ride scholarship or grant. Some people just can't swing it, even with students loans. Totally free college will allow more of those people to go. The kids from multi-million dollar families are a very small percentage of all students, plus they will probably be going to private schools which most likely wont be on the list of government funded colleges.
    Budgeting for Student Loan Repayment. The average student leaves college with about $25,000 in student loan debt. The monthly payment on a $25,000 student loan is approximately $280.
    ---cicmoney.com
    That's with a ten year repayment plan, many people have a 20 year repayment plan. I wish rent was that cheap in our town.

    First, there seems to be something wrong with your link. It doesn't lead anywhere.

    Second, you do understand what an "average" is, don't you? And also grasp that this "average" figure could in fact apply literally to not one single individual in the set "College graduates owing student debt?" We could be talking about a group of individuals owing amounts ranging from, oh, $416 total all the way up to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The monthly payment on a $198,000 debt could easily exceed $2200 a month, which is certainly more than double typical 1-bedroom apartment rents in my neighborhood.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    First, there seems to be something wrong with your link. It doesn't lead anywhere.

    Second, you do understand what an "average" is, don't you? And also grasp that this "average" figure could in fact apply literally to not one single individual in the set "College graduates owing student debt?" We could be talking about a group of individuals owing amounts ranging from, oh, $416 total all the way up to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The monthly payment on a $198,000 debt could easily exceed $2200 a month, which is certainly more than double typical 1-bedroom apartment rents in my neighborhood.

    [It wasn't meant to be a link just a credit line for the quote, That's why it wasn't red.}

    I actually do know what an "average" is and I think the reason many of us talk averages in these discussions is that it's impossible to take each individual and consider how the proposal might fit them. I expect the extreme amount of loan you mentioned belongs to someone with a very advanced education and hope they reap the rewards of all that time and money with a brilliant career. They must have expected it to be so or they wouldn't have voluntarily sought that enormous loan.

    I started this discussion about Elizabeth Warren's proposal with a couple of my own personal experiences, because I had recently read this on the Rublev call to hell thread by @Boogie
    Adding personal experience helps move the discussion forward, and helps us to get to know each other.

    I regret that now, because (1) my experience is anything but average,(2) looking at it now it's an embarrassing amount of TMI, (3) No Prophet just warned us about personal information on the internet, and (4) it got us all off track immediately with a turn away from the proposal and onto what a selfish, prodigal brother, dog-in-the-manger, Twilight is -- and we can do that anytime. ;)

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Nothing wrong with dogs Twilight, as my wife reminds me every time I curse a politician by calling them a dog. She also does stuff like cover the ears of dogs near her.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    My kind of woman!
  • A new Hill-HarrisX poll puts Biden way in the lead on 46%, with Bernie Sanders second on 14%. Biden is also getting much more coverage on the big news stations.

    What is cause, and what is effect?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Not sure why Leorning. I'm a terrible pick of US pollies. My preferred candidates are almost never successful. There is something about Biden I don't like - he's oily - so he's probably a shoe-in for the nomination.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 7
    A new Hill-HarrisX poll puts Biden way in the lead on 46%, with Bernie Sanders second on 14%. Biden is also getting much more coverage on the big news stations.

    What is cause, and what is effect?

    There's a little bit of each. Biden has name recognition and a certain appeal for those who are nostalgic for the Obama years. So he polls well among a lot of Democrats for those reasons and appeals to the non-Fox press because of his sunny optimism that, once Trump is out of office, there are reasonable Republicans he can "reach across the aisle" to enact bipartisan wonderfulness, and there's nothing the non-Fox press likes more than a situation where they don't have to make political judgments. So he polls well because he gets good press and he gets good press because he polls well. Kind of a positive feedback loop.

    Seriously, Biden's announcement video identifies Trump as the only real problem with the Republican party and seems predicated on the idea that if Democrats would just elect a calm, moderate technocrat who was willing to extend concessions to Republicans a new era of cooperation would bloom in America. The problem with this theory is that it's already been put to the test, and failed miserably. Those of us who remember The Before Time recall the existence of one Barack Obama, a calm, moderate technocrat who was willing to extend concessions to Republicans. The Republican response? Eight years of political obstructionism whose only parallel I can think of is Andrew Johnson being kneecapped by radical Republicans (ostensibly his own party) for betraying Lincoln's legacy. You'd think Biden would remember the Obama administration since he was there at the time, but either he doesn't or he's pretending he doesn't in the hopes that he can convince voters that he can work with moderate Republicans. (Mitch McConnell? Kevin McCarthy? Seriously, I'm drawing a blank on what prominent Congressional Republicans have shown any willingness to work with Democrats recently.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Even though Uncle Joe has a commanding lead in the early polls, it remains to be seen if he can hold on through next year. There is a lot that can happen. First the debates, then the Caucuses, then the primary elections.

    It could be that going into the Democratic National Convention no one will have the majority of the delegates. After the first ballot all bets will be off. There will be some wheeling and dealing the likes we have not seen since Franklin Roosevelt was nominated on the fourth ballot.

    It is good to be a Democrat
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So apparently Elizabeth Warren now has a plan to deal with the opioid crisis. For those who are having trouble keeping all of Warren's proposals straight John Voorhees offers a summarized list over at Slate.
    With nearly every proposal, Warren identifies something she sees as a serious problem — and often the specific entities that are causing that problem — and then points to the levers of government she’d pull to fix them. She doesn’t have a monopoly on all of these issues. Sanders, for instance, has his own plans to tax the wealthy. Harris and Booker have similarly made addressing the black maternal mortality rate a priority. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Buttigieg and, to a lesser degree, O’Rourke and Harris have taken aim at the Electoral College. But taken together, Warren’s plans bolster her general worldview in ways that the rest of the field’s more limited policy offerings do not. Her policy portfolio proves that Warren means it when she says she both believes in the power of the market and in the need for strong, enforceable rules to make the market fairer and more equitable.

    Her latest, minor initiative seems to be not treating Fox News as if it's an actual news outlet.
    Fox News is a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracy theorists. I won’t ask Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in order to see our candidates.

    Her policy seems to be that Fox is still welcome to cover her events, just like anyone else, but that she won't make any appearances on the network. This seems like a past-due position for Democratic politicians.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 14
    My preferred candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, with Sanders as a close second. I like Castro and Warren too. Realistically, out of those four, only Sanders or Warren have a real shot. Everyone else I'm familiar with ranges from "blah" (Harris, Buttigieg) to "hell no" (Biden) .
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Yeah, my first response to a boycott of Fox appearances is always negative. It seems wrong not to put your position to their viewers when you have a chance. Warren has the capacity to actually break through to their viewers despite the way Fox presents things. HOWEVER I have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth Warren, and I would back her judgement, tactically and strategically over mine any day of the week. She really is fantastic and I'm so sorry that she is the candidate I really want to win, because the things I find attractive and compelling in a candidate are not the things to which the American electorate seems to respond.

    Man, if I was going to donate to an American candidate, and I was allowed to do so, I would absolutely be sending her a regular monthly donation.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, my first response to a boycott of Fox appearances is always negative. It seems wrong not to put your position to their viewers when you have a chance. Warren has the capacity to actually break through to their viewers despite the way Fox presents things. HOWEVER I have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth Warren, and I would back her judgment, tactically and strategically over mine any day of the week. She really is fantastic and I'm so sorry that she is the candidate I really want to win, because the things I find attractive and compelling in a candidate are not the things to which the American electorate seems to respond.

    She seems to do very well at in-person meetings and town halls in red states without having to rely on Fox News as a mediator. She may be counting on not needing Fox to reach "gettable" voters in red states.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Not going into great detail, for privacy reasons.}

    Twilight--
    Twilight wrote: »

    As for your second part I have no idea. I would think very poor people probably went to college with scholarships and grants so it wouldn't benefit them as much.

    Well, I got full financial aid, which included LOANS, work-study job eligibility, scholarships, and loans. I was fortunate that I had good academic skills to get the grades that helped me qualify for all that help. I had no one in my life who could help.
    Twilight wrote: »
    On average, college graduates earn $1 million more in earnings over their lifetime than those without degrees. And this is the group we want to give more money to, not the 2/3 of Americans without degrees, many living on minimum wage.

    I've heard those stats, but I don't believe them. I doubt that's average. A college degree doesn't guarantee any job, let alone a well-paying job. It doesn't guarantee a job in one's degree field, or anything related to it. A college grad may well wind up in a minimum wage job. Or even homeless.

    Remember the meme, from several decades back, about PhDs driving cabs? Their degrees didn't guarantee them jobs in their PhD fields.

    Twilight, I'm truly sorry for what you and your family went through. It wasn't fair at all.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I wondered when this would finally happen: DeBlasio will run for President.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-york-mayor-bill-de-blasio-adds-his-name-to-the-democratic-presidential-field/2019/05/15/5776b89e-7647-11e9-b7ae-390de4259661_story.html?utm_term=.98b3a66efdc2

    He's been running for the office from Gracie Mansion since I got Facebook 2 years ago. Not that he's significantly better or worse than the rest of the tag team. I'm already sick of the herd of them. I don't know whether to throw up my hands, throw in the towel, run for the job myself, or just throw up.

    Our national politics is now a farce on both sides.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Somewhere upthread people were saying that 8 candidates show that the democratic party was fracturing. Now that it has 24 candidates, I would like to offer a hypothesis--that the multitude of candidates shows that the Democratic party is undergoing significant generational and ideological change. Millennials are now becoming the new voting block as boomers are exiting and Gen Z is just entering the voting population. Millennials are more Democratic Socialist in philosophy. We have a few Baby Boomer candidates that just will not give up. Gen Z candidates will likely be bridge candidates. But in eight years Millennials will own the party.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    You do realize there's another generation in there, between the boomers and the millennials? Gen X. Because we always get left out.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    You do realize there's another generation in there, between the boomers and the millennials? Gen X. Because we always get left out.

    There's been oodles written on Gen X, 'in our time', but generally Gen X'ers have chosen to go along to get along and tend towards a boomer or less often a millennial mentality without much to distinguish themselves.

    See all the Gen X celebrities constantly losing their shit on social media.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Yep. We're forgettable and of course it's utterly well deserved. Silly us.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 19
    Yep. We're forgettable and of course it's utterly well deserved. Silly us.

    :roll: Speaking as a Gen Xer I think there *was* a large amount written about 'us' about 10-20 years ago. I think most Gen Xers had the experience of growing up when young in the shadow of the Cold War, experienced the ending of the Cold War as a great liberation, and then eventually did fairly well out of the Great Moderation. In general 'we' are therefore very much in love with the parties of the Moderation and to a certain extent do not realise the extent to which they depended on material conditions that no longer exist (of which the socmed phenomena above is one visible manifestation).

    But I don't claim to speak for an entire generation - what do you want to say for Gen X?
  • Graven ImageGraven Image Shipmate
    As a member of Silent Generation: born before 1945, I will say nothing.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited May 19
    Might be a pond difference or a regional one. I'm not sure where you're from, but I've been heavily immersed in US written media and seen very little. I have no idea what the "Great Moderation" is--must google it. And no, I'm not fool enough to try to speak for an entire generation--just brought it up in response to Gramps 49's post. Around here, though, most media I've encountered seems to be operating on the assumption that one is either a boomer or a millennial, and regularly socks it home by referring to "your parents" (when addressing millennials or Gen Z, always clarified as meaning "boomers"). There are also those who are eager to see the presidency pass from boomer territory "to the next generation," which is of course millennials. ::eyeroll::

    I've mostly made my peace with it by this point, but not entirely.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Oh, and yay for the Silent Generation--we feel your pain! :wink:
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Might be a pond difference or a regional one. I'm not sure where you're from, but I've been heavily immersed in US written media and seen very little.

    As I said, think back 10-20 years (and we even got our own eponymous novel).
    I have no idea what the "Great Moderation" is--must google it.

    The period from roughly 1987-2007 where the economy was generally benign, where downturns were not as deep as they had been previously and where house prices started mostly affordable and then just kept going up and up.
    There are also those who are eager to see the presidency pass from boomer territory "to the next generation," which is of course millennials. ::eyeroll::

    I suspect that is because insofar as there is any strong millenial tendency it is directed towards Third Way style politicians of the Blair/Obama kind for whom the economic and political conditions are not favorable right now. Politically, it requires a right that is willing to at least play at compromise - see the posts by Dave W and Creoses over in the other place to that. Economically; one of the memorable Blair-era comments here in the UK is that the government were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes", of course it turns out that they weren't paying their taxes. That wealth and the influence it bought skewed politics to the right, to where we are now - the beginnings of an Arendtian compact between the elite and the mob.

    I imagine that if things go well, we will look back on this period as one of 'trust busting' of some kind.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    I thought it was the Boomers who grew up under the shadow of the Cold War...?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I thought it was the Boomers who grew up under the shadow of the Cold War...?

    Gen-Xers run from the early/mid 1960s to the early 1980s, so a large percentage spent some of their early years in the shadow of the Cold War, and some came to political consciousness during the Thatcher/Reagan era
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    Thank you.
  • Late Generation X-er here (albeit not an American).

    A major reason we get overlooked is that compared to Boomers and Millennials, we are relatively few in number. Actually, we suffer from quite a lot of the same problems as Millennials (priced out of the housing market, mounting and increasingly untenable deficit, stagnating wages, we’ll still be around to reap a lot of the consequences of climate change…) but we’ve never been a large enough voting block to do much about it.

    For a long time, Boomers were by far the largest numerical group of voters. And go figure, they voted for (especially fiscal) policies that benefitted themselves. Trouble is such policies weren’t necessarily prudent for the future (cutting taxes by running up the deficit for example). This is why I find it so frustrating to see candidates in their late seventies at the top of the poll. I firmly believe it is time to break the stranglehold of the Boomers on public life and elect someone younger.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    As a member of Silent Generation: born before 1945, I will say nothing.

    The decimated generation - one in ten killed in war? It's probably higher than that.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    The Silent Generation folks were too young to be sent to war.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Many were there already weren't they?
  • Graven ImageGraven Image Shipmate
    It is sort of a confusing title. I was indeed to young to go war, but those who were 18 and up did. Not sure what the lower cut off date is. As for being silent, we were not silent when it came to the civil rights movement.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited May 22
    The Silent Generation starts in the mid- to late-1920s, depending on who's doing the defining, and runs till 1945. Americans born in 1925 were 16 when the US entered WW2 in late 1941, so the Silent Generation in the US did not get sent to war. They follow the Greatest Generation, who did get sent to war.

    Edited to add: The generational thing is all a bit bullshit, IMO. I was born in 1962, so technically am a baby boomer, but coming at the very end of it (it goes through 1964) means I didn't have quintessential baby boom experiences. I'm supposedly too old to be part of Gen X, but when their experiences are described, they fit a lot better.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 22
    There are differing standards for where the breaks occur, but this is how the Pew Research Center divides up Western generations. Not included in that link is the G.I. Generation, sometimes referred to as the Greatest Generation, which Pew specifies as anyone born between 1901 and 1927.

    Here's a generational breakdown of current 2020 presidential candidates using Pew's standards:

    Silents:
    Bernie Sanders
    Joe Biden
    Bill Weld (R)

    Boomers:
    Donald Trump (R)
    Elizabeth Warren
    Jay Inslee
    John Hickenlooper
    Amy Klobuchar
    Bill de Blasio
    Kamala Harris
    Michael Bennet

    Gen X:
    Steve Bullock
    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Cory Booker
    Beto O'Rourke
    Julián Castro

    Millennials:
    Tulsi Gabbard
    Pete Buttigieg

    Gen Z:
    No one from this generation will be old enough on January 20, 2021 to be president.

    I've omitted several of the bottom tier Democrats for the sake of (moderate) brevity. It should be noted that of these listed generations only the Baby Boomers have been elected president, which is kind of a 'knock on' effect of how long the G.I. Generation held on to power.
Sign In or Register to comment.