3 ms·

No you totally missed my point. Places I was giving example as are places where you as a politician literally have to do nothing and you would still be winning

No you totally missed my point. Places I was giving example as are places where you as a politician literally have to do nothing and you would still be winning elections. So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? The example I gave was SF which happens to be left (much like most of the HCOL cities) but the same would be applicable to right as well. My point is the moment politicians realize they don’t actually have to make any efforts to improve the quality of life for their constituents, and can rather keep them busy driving culture war outrage and making them single issue voters is the moment people as a whole lose. For example I don’t like Joe Manchin or Kristin Synema. But they are hell of a better choice for the people they are serving than Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz. Knowing your action can cost you elections is how democracy is supposed to work. > If we followed the logic in your comment, a millennial in a southern red city would reject the right, and choose the left If it means that the right is virtually winning every election cycle and not doing anything to improve their quality of life and major pressing issues, then yes they should. Democracy is all about keeping people in power in check so when it comes to re-election we can vote them Out if they didn’t do a good job. at least in my book.

akiselev 5y ago
With all due respect, it seems you're so deep into the culture war that you can't see the forest for the trees. The left vs right distinction hasn't existed in San Francisco for decades at this point - it barely exists in California metros at all anymore beyond the old party fundraising machinery. The Republican party is already practically irrelevant state wide. The same can be said of Democrats in rural California or even many states. In those scenarios, the second you make it about political ideology, you shut yourself out of the process, either by refusing to engage with it because they're the "others" or failing to understand what the constituents actually care about. For example, you're negatively comparing Nancy Pelosi, the House Rep of one of the wealthiest districts in the country, to three senators of diverse states. I don't see what led you to that conclusion other than a ideological blind spot - all the SF homeowners who put her in office for nearly 40 years have benefited wildly from the national policies she has supported. She has so much power in Congress because she represents that district so well that she can spend all her time fundraising for other members of Congress and fighting the culture war (which, in my experience, rarely bleeds into her actual campaign because her constituency doesn't give one shit as long as their two bedroom condo is worth 7 figures). These are the "wealthy" that the GP is talking about and they've stuck with her for nearly four decades through several boom and bust cycles. Say all you want about her politics, but her constituents overwhelmingly chose her over and over again. Are they idiots? Most striking is that all of your complaints seem to be about the local politics of San Francisco - so what do Pelosi, Cruz, Sinema, or Manchin have to do with it? If they had any more than a passing, indirect influence on San Francisco decision makers, it would be a major breach of the Federal/state/local separation of powers. Likewise with monetary policy. A focus on national politics makes one completely blind to what's actually going on at a local level.
ProfessorLayton 5y ago
>So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? That's actually the problem! Spoiler: They don't vote (enough, compared to older cohorts). Older people are generally wealthier, and they also tend to vote in greater numbers and for their own interests, but younger people don't. It really is tragic, but not for the reasons you listed.

akiselev 5y ago

With all due respect, it seems you're so deep into the culture war that you can't see the forest for the trees. The left vs right distinction hasn't existed in San Francisco for decades at this point - it barely exists in California metros at all anymore beyond the old party fundraising machinery. The Republican party is already practically irrelevant state wide. The same can be said of Democrats in rural California or even many states. In those scenarios, the second you make it about political ideology, you shut yourself out of the process, either by refusing to engage with it because they're the "others" or failing to understand what the constituents actually care about. For example, you're negatively comparing Nancy Pelosi, the House Rep of one of the wealthiest districts in the country, to three senators of diverse states. I don't see what led you to that conclusion other than a ideological blind spot - all the SF homeowners who put her in office for nearly 40 years have benefited wildly from the national policies she has supported. She has so much power in Congress because she represents that district so well that she can spend all her time fundraising for other members of Congress and fighting the culture war (which, in my experience, rarely bleeds into her actual campaign because her constituency doesn't give one shit as long as their two bedroom condo is worth 7 figures). These are the "wealthy" that the GP is talking about and they've stuck with her for nearly four decades through several boom and bust cycles. Say all you want about her politics, but her constituents overwhelmingly chose her over and over again. Are they idiots? Most striking is that all of your complaints seem to be about the local politics of San Francisco - so what do Pelosi, Cruz, Sinema, or Manchin have to do with it? If they had any more than a passing, indirect influence on San Francisco decision makers, it would be a major breach of the Federal/state/local separation of powers. Likewise with monetary policy. A focus on national politics makes one completely blind to what's actually going on at a local level.

ProfessorLayton 5y ago

>So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? That's actually the problem! Spoiler: They don't vote (enough, compared to older cohorts). Older people are generally wealthier, and they also tend to vote in greater numbers and for their own interests, but younger people don't. It really is tragic, but not for the reasons you listed.