And the Dems can blow that for a generation or more by handing the nomination to Hillary. When all the new voters find that their votes don't matter and they (rightfully) feel betrayed, they will NEVER vote Dem again.

Those of us in that age group are still in the workplace, and aren't benefiting from having been hired during times of economic improvement.

We can't delude ourselves as to the state of this country. You'll probably find that most of the people currently interested in the BS that the Republicans are selling are already retired or in relatively safe jobs.

The problem is too many soul-less ass hats in DC who won't exploit(in a good way) that chart. The Democrats could make the Republicans go the way of the Whigs, if they'd stop being corporate puppets(Chuck Schumer, I am looking at you!!!).

It's awesome that the Democrats are enjoying this lead right now. But I worry that, like a lot of liberal groups, the very fact of their heightened support makes them less of a priority for Democratic strategists. In particular, I think this is a big part of Clinton's gamble -- the assumption that, just like with the Kerry/Dean situation, young voters will accept whoever the party nominates.

And I don't think that's necessarily true.

You're talking about voters who, for the most part, didn't really even experience all that much of the Clinton era, certainly not as politically aware individuals. Most of us have really become politically aware under Bush, where the Democrats assumed the role of this shadow opposition who could turn things around. Right now, they're all potential, but that will necessarily change as they have to govern.

On top of that, as much as young people like the Democrats, I don't think there's a lot of faith in the current leadership. Youth mobilization through emerging technology (most prominently in blogs) has been a big (though of course not determinative) factor in the party's leadership battles in the Bush era. But there's been some major pushback against that role, and the more that youth-oriented groups and candidates are painted as illegitimate players in party politics, the riskier youth allegiance gets.

Not to focus obsessively on the Presidential election, but the superdelegate strategy is exactly this kind of pushback. I it will form sort of a trifecta with two other famous examples cited for the party's "spinelessness": the refusal to fight for Gore in 2000, and the misguided (and ugly) campaign to knock Dean out in 2004. How many times does the youth candidate need to get his ass kicked (arguably in unfair ways) before the youth stop caring?

Republicans were successful during the eighties and nineties of in convincing parents and their offspring that if you are smart and ambitious and willing to take the gloves off you can be a winner. All others being losers.

It was the attitude that created our present economic and political situation. It's gratifying to see the pendulum swing back to the point at which young people are willing to see that win-win may have its appeal.

Hallefuckingluea
Thank you George Bush!

If Hillary things she can keep that support among young people after spending the last decade spitting in our faces and insulting our culture, she's sorely mistaken.

Kerry didn't hate us, and we didn't all really care that much about Dean to begin with. We all like Obama, and most of us hate Hillary Clinton.

Still, the danger of the super delegate strategy is mostly with the black vote. They've been asked to take one for the team a few too many times already, and picking old white woman who lost the primaries over the young black man who won them would probably doom our chances for the Presidency and cost us the senate.