Boomers have the bulk of wealth and political power. We (millenials) still have a a couple decades I think before things are our fault
And in a two party system, even a majority won't help. Biden got elected thanks to young voters, but look how little climate action the new administration has taken.
Sad that you're looking to assign blame rather than problem-solve for future generations.
Seeing how these discussions go today, however, and looking forward - I fully expect the millennials to be an easy target before long. Gen X isn't big enough to shoulder the blame after boomers die out.
You're right of course, I should have said plurality. I'm currently reading a biography of Hitler so you'd think I'd be particularly sensitive to the difference.
People look at everything trump did and think "why can't Biden do the same, but for good?" and the problem is, the government is built to be torn down, not built up.
Biden has no power to take climate action. The EPA doesn't have the ability to just subsidize solar panels or enact taxes on CO2 emissions. They've actually tried to do that for CO2 and that was struck down by the supreme court. [1]
That leaves congressional action to force climate action and, unfortunately we have a 50/50 split in the senate with 2 democrat senators that are weak on climate issues. (50 republican senators that will not support any climate action).
Once you realize this, you understand the solution is voting for democrats to the senate in 2022/2024 so those 2 holdouts don't matter as much. Move the balance of the senate by 2 more democrat senators and you might see some climate action.
Stop being disappointed in biden for not doing what he can't do. Start being mad at the 2 democrat senators and the 50 republican senators who stand in the way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_Air_Regulatory_Group_v...
If Biden cared, he could shame these "Democrat" senators and prevent them from getting re-elected. If he uses his platform to inhibit their campaign fundraising, they will surely change positions out of fear of loosing their seat.
And something to keep in mind before we make campaign contributions for 2022, remember that some votes are way more valuable than others. Each vote for a Senator in Arizona counts more than 5x than in California.
It's hard to do that when you are unpopular nationwide[1] and downright loathed in Arizona[2]. Independents approval/disapproval is 30-60.
Sinema is much more popular than Biden, but not so popular among her base. A democrat can't win in Arizona just on the basis of the Democratic vote. They have to win the independent vote and hope for low turnout in the GOP. So Biden is already a drag on Sinema's re-election. If he publicly attacked her, her popularity would go up. Why do you think she is opposing these policies? Because it increases her political capital and support at home. The more the media focuses on her as the one blocking these unpopular policies, the more Arizona voters rally to her side.
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bidens-approval-rating-down-in...
Manchin is more popular than Biden in WV, and his positions do more to support his fundraising than Biden’s opposition would do to hurt it. Biden can't meaningfully hurt Manchin.
Sinema presents the opposite problem: she's already completely alienated the Democratic primary electorate. She clearly isn't interested in being reelected (or, if she does care, its not as a Democrat), so there's no leverage there.
But honestly, Manchin is a democrat senator in a red state. Manchin pissing off Biden and the rest of the Democrats is likely GOOD for him there.
Sinema has no excuse and should be primaried in AZ.
> I will readily admit that the Democratic party deserves more blame than Biden himself.
I don't agree with either Democrats or Biden being blamed here. Democrats do not have a filibuster proof majority. Why blame them when Republicans are filibustering nearly every single bill put forward? This isn't an example of a party failing, this is an example of simply not having enough votes to make a change.
> remember that some votes are way more valuable than others.
Definitely agree, but also remember to never say never. Georgia, of all states, put in 2 democrat senators. I would have never predicted that would happen.
And to that point, I don't think a single bill would have passed had that not happened. I think Democrats take way too much blame for Republican obstruction. They've been shockingly unified throughout this legislative session. They've finally started playing some harder ball. Don't blame them because it's still incredibly tight margins.
"If". This isn't a new problem, the young people never show up to vote. They are given a million messages that they can't make a difference, that they shouldn't bother. They should wonder who is sending those messages.
What do you say to me?
However those whose votes are meaningful don't know it.
Let's say that if do you vote, you are 99.999% sure your vote is meaningless. If you don't vote, you'll be 100% sure. That .001% is a larger difference than it might seem.
What's stopping you?
Sure they do. They live in Minnesota, Wisconson, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Nebraka's weird second district, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Maine's weird second district, Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, or Missouri; give or take a few.
> Let's say that if do you vote, you are 99.999% sure your vote is meaningless. If you don't vote, you'll be 100% sure. That .001% is a larger difference than it might seem.
> What's stopping you?
Do you use the same logic for the lottery? Because I'd reckon you have better odds of winning the powerball than the odds of massachusetts turning red.
Your 0.001% chance is made up and too large.
The marginal cost of marking a candidate in the Presidential race is a lot lower than the price of a lottery ticket, especially if you are already voting in any of the other races that are usually on the same ballot and where your chance of impact is usually much higher.
OTOH, maybe generations are just astrology for journalists.