However, every person who was alive when I was born who has since died, which is likely two-thirds or more of the three billion people alive back then, has been replaced by someone who is also younger than me. That means that I am among the oldest one billion people in the world.
Okay, that is understandable. I am in my sixties. Four of my eight great-grandparents were alive when I was born. The last one died in 1972. I had three living grandparents, and today have none. I have only one parent left today. Most of the relatives from her generation are gone. At 61, I am old in terms of the world's population.
Let's check that at a different point. The world's population hit four billion in 1974, or 45 years ago. It will soon hit eight billion, which means that roughly half of the world's population is under 45 years old based just on those numbers.
At that point, all four of my great-grandparents and one of my grandparents had died, and, therefore, had already been replaced by people who had to be younger than 14 years old. Since then, both of my remaining grandparents and one of my parents has died. It is probably a conservative estimate that of the two billion people who have died since 1960, that half of those in that number have died since 1974.
We now have enough information to estimate that about one-in-eight people are 60 and older, and that roughly one-in-four people are 45 and older. If we subtract from the one-in-four people who are 45 or older the one-in-eight people who are 60 and older, we can estimate that one-in-eight people are between the ages of 45 and 59.
That age range of 45 to 59 is the one in which my grandparents fell when I was born. At that time, however, people who were 45 years old and older would likely have represented closer to one-in-three people in the world. Despite that decline in ratio, the number of people older than 45 in the world has grown significantly from 1960 to today.
So What?
When the pace of overall growth is accelerating, and the numbers within each group are increasing, any group in which the percentages are declining must be offset by percentages increasing greater in other groups. The age groups that are growing both in numbers and percentages are the younger age groups. People in the younger age groups also have collective interests that are different than the interests of older generations, and they have the numbers of people necessary to begin making the changes that people in younger generations will need made to survive.
If Democrats really want to win the election in 2020, it would be more valuable to go after the votes of young people. The growth in the younger population is exponential, increasing in both numbers and percentages, whereas the growth in the population of the older generations are not. The numbers are increasing but the ratios are decreasing. These groups will grow in numbers because of voters reaching those ages. There will not be new voters filling the groups. People simply are reaching the older ages faster than people in those older age groups are dying. It is still attrition.
Many people in the older generations want to talk about old-time values that young people should adopt so life can be as it once was. What they fail to realize is that young people do not have the same fond memories of those days because, for the most part, they weren't born yet. The second thing they fail to realize is that many of the crises that literally threaten human existence today are the result of those old-time values and life as it once was.
Furthermore, the total disregard for the interests of human life later this century isn't something they should accept just because old people are going to die by then anyway. Only young people have anything truly at stake in pushing forth their interests, and older people who don't get that point will soon enough be silenced by death. That's not my fault; it's the way life works.
If there are those numbers, then, why can this not be done through a third party?
Gravity? Did You Say Gravity?
Both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have ruled out potentially running as independent or third-party candidates. Both are dedicated to seeking the nomination for president from the Democratic party. The objective of the political revolution cannot be reduced to only getting Bernie Sanders elected to the presidency. The objective of the political revolution is to take over the identity of the Democratic party, and, to do so, power must be seized from within it.
This may sound objectionable to people who resolutely identify as Democrats. However, the general membership of the party supported the more progressive platform that the party agreed to in exchange for Bernie Sanders' endorsement and assistance. From that point forward, the party bosses have done nothing to uphold their end of the bargain. For example, establishment candidates are wishy-washy, at best, on Medicare for All. Those who aren't wishy-washy are against it.
We see the same divisions on the Green New Deal. Those who aren't wishy-washy are against it. This is despite overwhelming support for both of these programs from people who identify as Democrats. These are the people the party can count on "voting blue no matter who." If history serves as a lesson, the other people the party should believe are those who say they will only vote for Bernie.
However, the best interests of those who are in charge of the party are not the same as the best interests of the people who must vote for them. That sounds a lot like the difference between the conflicting interests of the older and younger generations. It is essentially the same battle, except those who "vote blue no matter who" and who also believe the party should support the life-or-death interests of the younger generations can't reconcile the conflicting statements.
If you relate to the Democratic party, and you are now resorting in your mind to the talking point of "we need to get Trump out first," you are the problem. I don't mean that offensively, but you are the reason this nation's political compass is heading everyone toward a shithole. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person just because you are ruining this world for young people.
Don't get offended or defensive. You can do something about it.
I've covered a lot of math in this post, but, in fairness, it was mentioned in the title. For those who resolve to vote blue no matter who, there are two logical options for you. The first is to admit that you don't really support the life-or-death interests of young people; the second is to demand that the party support the life-or-death interests of young people and to go after the votes of those who are believably saying they will only vote for Bernie.
How is that Gravity?
I wrote an article after the convention and before the election in 2016 in which I explained how the force that drew the support of people to Bernie was partly the gravity of the Democratic party. Once the party gravity disappeared, Bernie had a much smaller following. Some of his once-loyal followers had turned into vocal opponents of his message to vote for the party's candidate.
All those "meteorites" that had landed on the Democratic planet were essentially cast back into orbit with the expectation that Bernie could bring them all back with the sound of his voice. He couldn't.
Bernie would not get the following he has if he were running outside the Democratic party. The Green party has nearly the same platform that Bernie has. He could lend the party his gravity, but the party itself has very little gravity. Even if he were to get every vote from all the people who come to his rallies, he would not be able to draw away those who "vote blue no matter who" from the Democratic party. They will not break away from party loyalty even for a candidate whose platform they like better than the Democratic platform.
What those who will "vote blue no matter who" should do is support the candidate who has the greatest support from young people. For example, if you are one of the people who is voting for the candidate who gets nominated no matter who it is, and there is a large group of people whose votes are needed to win but who will only vote for one candidate, then if the candidate they support gets nominated, your vote is added to all of their votes.
If the party nominates anyone other than the only candidate that other group will vote for, then it is the fault of the party that the votes are not combined. The fact that you were wishy-washy about your choice does not mean that other people need to flop around with you. It is not their fault that they are keeping their promises. It is either the party's fault for not caring enough to go for their vote, or your fault for being wishy-washy about your preference when the party was trying to cram a candidate down everyone's throats.
Voting blue no matter who gave the nation Joe Crowley. Young people fighting the establishment got us Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Old people who identify as Democrats and young people alike should be happy for that. And while most older people who identify as Democrats seem to like Ocasio-Cortez, many of those same people still think "voting blue no matter who" is the answer for winnng the presidency in 2020.
While it is true that if people who say they will only vote for Bernie can somehow be tricked into voting for anyone who gets the nomination, then that candidate gets the votes. If they cannot be tricked into voting for just anyone, then those people who support the progressive platform must support the candidate who will assuredly get the votes. Everything else requires an element of hocus pocus because it cannot otherwise be logically supported or reconciled.
Given the choices of tricking my children into believing the establishment candidates will put their interests ahead of the interests of their donors or voting for what is truly in their best interests, the establishment candidates have no chance. Let me repeat the really important part: the establishment candidates have no chance.
Only the candidate who has the large following that will vote only for him can get your vote on top of their votes. You can try to shame his supporters for keeping their word later, but it is partly the fault of the party for not believing them, and mostly your fault for not yelling at the party to try for those votes.
So, what if you are one of those people who will "vote blue no matter who," but you don't want Bernie Sanders to get the nomination? Well, then, you are either a confused liar, or you, too, don't really care about the best interests of young people and are trying to trick them into later voting against their own best interests and for your favorite candidate.
Ultimately, old people giving lip service to young people is the reason we don't have nice things any longer. The nicest thing we older people can give to young people is a Democratic party with leadership that has their best interests at heart.
Let's check that at a different point. The world's population hit four billion in 1974, or 45 years ago. It will soon hit eight billion, which means that roughly half of the world's population is under 45 years old based just on those numbers.
At that point, all four of my great-grandparents and one of my grandparents had died, and, therefore, had already been replaced by people who had to be younger than 14 years old. Since then, both of my remaining grandparents and one of my parents has died. It is probably a conservative estimate that of the two billion people who have died since 1960, that half of those in that number have died since 1974.
We now have enough information to estimate that about one-in-eight people are 60 and older, and that roughly one-in-four people are 45 and older. If we subtract from the one-in-four people who are 45 or older the one-in-eight people who are 60 and older, we can estimate that one-in-eight people are between the ages of 45 and 59.
That age range of 45 to 59 is the one in which my grandparents fell when I was born. At that time, however, people who were 45 years old and older would likely have represented closer to one-in-three people in the world. Despite that decline in ratio, the number of people older than 45 in the world has grown significantly from 1960 to today.
So What?
When the pace of overall growth is accelerating, and the numbers within each group are increasing, any group in which the percentages are declining must be offset by percentages increasing greater in other groups. The age groups that are growing both in numbers and percentages are the younger age groups. People in the younger age groups also have collective interests that are different than the interests of older generations, and they have the numbers of people necessary to begin making the changes that people in younger generations will need made to survive.
If Democrats really want to win the election in 2020, it would be more valuable to go after the votes of young people. The growth in the younger population is exponential, increasing in both numbers and percentages, whereas the growth in the population of the older generations are not. The numbers are increasing but the ratios are decreasing. These groups will grow in numbers because of voters reaching those ages. There will not be new voters filling the groups. People simply are reaching the older ages faster than people in those older age groups are dying. It is still attrition.
Many people in the older generations want to talk about old-time values that young people should adopt so life can be as it once was. What they fail to realize is that young people do not have the same fond memories of those days because, for the most part, they weren't born yet. The second thing they fail to realize is that many of the crises that literally threaten human existence today are the result of those old-time values and life as it once was.
Furthermore, the total disregard for the interests of human life later this century isn't something they should accept just because old people are going to die by then anyway. Only young people have anything truly at stake in pushing forth their interests, and older people who don't get that point will soon enough be silenced by death. That's not my fault; it's the way life works.
If there are those numbers, then, why can this not be done through a third party?
Gravity? Did You Say Gravity?
Both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have ruled out potentially running as independent or third-party candidates. Both are dedicated to seeking the nomination for president from the Democratic party. The objective of the political revolution cannot be reduced to only getting Bernie Sanders elected to the presidency. The objective of the political revolution is to take over the identity of the Democratic party, and, to do so, power must be seized from within it.
This may sound objectionable to people who resolutely identify as Democrats. However, the general membership of the party supported the more progressive platform that the party agreed to in exchange for Bernie Sanders' endorsement and assistance. From that point forward, the party bosses have done nothing to uphold their end of the bargain. For example, establishment candidates are wishy-washy, at best, on Medicare for All. Those who aren't wishy-washy are against it.
We see the same divisions on the Green New Deal. Those who aren't wishy-washy are against it. This is despite overwhelming support for both of these programs from people who identify as Democrats. These are the people the party can count on "voting blue no matter who." If history serves as a lesson, the other people the party should believe are those who say they will only vote for Bernie.
However, the best interests of those who are in charge of the party are not the same as the best interests of the people who must vote for them. That sounds a lot like the difference between the conflicting interests of the older and younger generations. It is essentially the same battle, except those who "vote blue no matter who" and who also believe the party should support the life-or-death interests of the younger generations can't reconcile the conflicting statements.
If you relate to the Democratic party, and you are now resorting in your mind to the talking point of "we need to get Trump out first," you are the problem. I don't mean that offensively, but you are the reason this nation's political compass is heading everyone toward a shithole. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person just because you are ruining this world for young people.
Don't get offended or defensive. You can do something about it.
I've covered a lot of math in this post, but, in fairness, it was mentioned in the title. For those who resolve to vote blue no matter who, there are two logical options for you. The first is to admit that you don't really support the life-or-death interests of young people; the second is to demand that the party support the life-or-death interests of young people and to go after the votes of those who are believably saying they will only vote for Bernie.
How is that Gravity?
I wrote an article after the convention and before the election in 2016 in which I explained how the force that drew the support of people to Bernie was partly the gravity of the Democratic party. Once the party gravity disappeared, Bernie had a much smaller following. Some of his once-loyal followers had turned into vocal opponents of his message to vote for the party's candidate.
All those "meteorites" that had landed on the Democratic planet were essentially cast back into orbit with the expectation that Bernie could bring them all back with the sound of his voice. He couldn't.
Bernie would not get the following he has if he were running outside the Democratic party. The Green party has nearly the same platform that Bernie has. He could lend the party his gravity, but the party itself has very little gravity. Even if he were to get every vote from all the people who come to his rallies, he would not be able to draw away those who "vote blue no matter who" from the Democratic party. They will not break away from party loyalty even for a candidate whose platform they like better than the Democratic platform.
What those who will "vote blue no matter who" should do is support the candidate who has the greatest support from young people. For example, if you are one of the people who is voting for the candidate who gets nominated no matter who it is, and there is a large group of people whose votes are needed to win but who will only vote for one candidate, then if the candidate they support gets nominated, your vote is added to all of their votes.
If the party nominates anyone other than the only candidate that other group will vote for, then it is the fault of the party that the votes are not combined. The fact that you were wishy-washy about your choice does not mean that other people need to flop around with you. It is not their fault that they are keeping their promises. It is either the party's fault for not caring enough to go for their vote, or your fault for being wishy-washy about your preference when the party was trying to cram a candidate down everyone's throats.
Voting blue no matter who gave the nation Joe Crowley. Young people fighting the establishment got us Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Old people who identify as Democrats and young people alike should be happy for that. And while most older people who identify as Democrats seem to like Ocasio-Cortez, many of those same people still think "voting blue no matter who" is the answer for winnng the presidency in 2020.
While it is true that if people who say they will only vote for Bernie can somehow be tricked into voting for anyone who gets the nomination, then that candidate gets the votes. If they cannot be tricked into voting for just anyone, then those people who support the progressive platform must support the candidate who will assuredly get the votes. Everything else requires an element of hocus pocus because it cannot otherwise be logically supported or reconciled.
Given the choices of tricking my children into believing the establishment candidates will put their interests ahead of the interests of their donors or voting for what is truly in their best interests, the establishment candidates have no chance. Let me repeat the really important part: the establishment candidates have no chance.
Only the candidate who has the large following that will vote only for him can get your vote on top of their votes. You can try to shame his supporters for keeping their word later, but it is partly the fault of the party for not believing them, and mostly your fault for not yelling at the party to try for those votes.
So, what if you are one of those people who will "vote blue no matter who," but you don't want Bernie Sanders to get the nomination? Well, then, you are either a confused liar, or you, too, don't really care about the best interests of young people and are trying to trick them into later voting against their own best interests and for your favorite candidate.
Ultimately, old people giving lip service to young people is the reason we don't have nice things any longer. The nicest thing we older people can give to young people is a Democratic party with leadership that has their best interests at heart.
