Not to defend dems strategy but look at 2010 for a prime example of what my post above was talking about. ACA is exactly what young voters wanted, what dems pushed for in 2008 and was exactly what GOP ran against in 2010. And in 2010, young voters didn't show up, so all the congressional members who pushed it through got unseated by conservatives eager to rip it apart and stonewall anything else Obama did.

So yes, my point stands. It's because young voters do not vote, especially not in midterm years between presidential elections that we aren't getting politicians who appeal to the under 50-60 block. Because even when Dems go all out and give them everything they want, they still don't show up at the polls to maintain momentum, and Dems lose a ton of ground. So can you blame them for making the choice between getting once in a generation power plays to change the status quo then go right back to letting GOP rip everything apart piecemeal and load the courts with conservative judges, or pick safer bet candidates who appeal to the ones who regularly turn out to vote even if progress only comes in bite sized changes they can slip through with aid of moderates and independents?

The math is there, you just have to look at the entire equation. GET OUT AND VOTE. EVERY ELECTION.

Not really? The highest turnout for under 25s over the last 58 years was... in 2020 (~50%), when it was literally the same matchup . And that's still significantly lower than other age groups (62% 25-44, 71% 45+).

There was a small bump in 2008 (assuming you mean Obama), up to 49%. But in 2004 when John Kerry was the candidate the turnout was about 47% so not like. A huge change. And nobody remembers John Kerry.

Looking across the pond, in 2019 when Corbyn was head of the labor party and ran on a lot of lovely progressive issues, the turnout under 24s (they use slightly different brackets) was... Just over 50%

It kinda seems like young people just don't vote at very high rates, period. So it doesn't make a ton of sense to focus on them over other groups if you actually want to get elected and hold power.

No, then change simply starts automatically as the party appeals to the remaining voters. There's not some special dynamic happening there, it's just that simple: politicians want power, they're going to do whatever gives them the most power.

Da, correkt response.

Fantastigasmical?

Uh, no. No he wasn’t.

the best thing biden has going for him is that he's not trump. and that's not sustainable.

He’s on record as talking about not being restricted to a third term. SCOTUS has ruled that he can do no wrong, specifically in the context of him being brought to trial for asking for the vote to be rigged in his favour, but also for inciting armed insurrection against the United States government in order to keep him in power after the rules said he should go. He has talked, out loud, about being a dictator on day one and said that he should be allowed to order the death of people who oppose him. You could argue that Russia is a democracy, but the kind of “democracy” where political opponents are murdered and vote counts are changed in favour of the leader are better called dictatorships.

The thinking is that Trump will do something for the republicans to remain in power permanently.

Not clear what that something is.