My generation (I am 24) has more immaturity than true stupidity to it.

And of course that’s true of every generation at that age. Every generation has its share of heroes and parasites; geniuses and idiots.

Anna, it’s great to see you here. Sometimes I fear that the blogs I read are mostly frequented by old codgers like me.

Have you ever read “The Fourth Turning” by Strauss and Howe? I’m a Boomer, but after reading that, you won’t catch me slagging on Millennials. You kids have got your work cut out for you.

Why would they care about the GOP that gave us what, Bush, Dole, Bush II, Bush II, McCain, Romney and now maybe Bush III?

See this, particularly pages 4-6.

First, Hillary Clinton has better name recognition than any presidential prospect of either party. Based on this alone, any head to head matchup including her name will be skewed in her favor. Romney has high name recognition too, but it inextricably intertwined with losing. In this extremely early stage of the 2016 campaign (to the extent there even is a “campaign” as yet) this perception would markedly handicap Romney against any opponent. Any other Republican (even Jeb) is handicapped by lower name recognition, but of course, this will be overcome in time

The generic Democrat v. Republican question is probably a better barometer of millennial’s Presidential preference. It still significantly favors the Democrats, but by a much closer (and more balanced) margin.

The question about identifying a home state U.S. Senator is problematic for several reasons. As per usual in these polls, it doesn’t provide details as to incorrect answers. I’d bet a significant portion of that 77% named their congressman by mistake. Another significant portion may have named a senator who just left office. We just underwent an election resulting in large number of new senators; this new crop was sworn in only one month ago. Yet, presumably, a Coloradan who said “Mark Udall”, an Iowan stating “Tom Harkin” and so forth would be in the 77%. Technically incorrect, but highly distinguishable from the “I don’t knows”

To be clear, I fully acknowledge all citizens should be able to identify (and distinguish between) their congressman and senator at present. However, this poll implies (and readers are likely inferring) a far more ignorant sample than is likely the case.

**As an aside, I think identifying officeholders is of far less importance than developing a knowledge of major political issues, a rough outline of both party’s policy positions and, most importantly, a working understanding of how the political, legislative and administrative processes work. Perhaps knowledge or ignorance of the former is indicative of the same with the latter; perhaps not. Many people are poor with names; many others are very good with names. (I happen to be of the latter; for example: if quizzed I could name four or five famous quantum physicists, instantly. Could I provide even a basic definition of quantum physics? Not without a fair amount of thought).

The question about government is especially inane. Its vagueness undermines drawing any significant inference to the answers provided? Define “government”. If we include all forms of government, at all levels, I’m not sure how I would answer. “In general” Yikes. Of course it can be helpful or harmful depending widely on circumstance. If the inference to be drawn is, taken as a whole, does the benefit to “government” outweigh the detriment, my answer would be “of course!”. I think most Americans would answer the same. Despite the palpable, abusive and disconcerting encroachments on liberty over the last few years, we still live in a very free society; much preferable to anarchy or even a Nozickian “Minarchist” state. This is no way implies contentment with the current role of government in our society or that major reform isn’t necessary or is improbable or undesirable.

Lastly, I want to reiterate my skepticism that there has been a significant decline in civic literacy in America today. I agree that the left exploits popular ignorance of our political process and legislative process; the certainly do so, and with increasing success, it appears. However, can someone point me to similar polling done 40 years ago or 60 years ago? I strongly suspect the results would be similar, but I am open to being convinced otherwise

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/02/02/rip-emerging-democratic-majority/

At least they know her name – well, that might be the very reason why they favor her – name recognition. it seems to work every time.

It might be the reason we will end up with another round of Clinton vs. Bush. Both are names that many folks have heard before; and both parties might think that simple name recognition will work in their favor.

And, yea, it does spell trouble for our republic if that is the only thing that helps most folks decide how to vote.

You write: “in families so small they got all the attention but none of the difficulties of growing up.”

Small families eliminate some difficulties involving sharing of resources (including parental attention) with siblings, and sibling conflict in general. But “none of the difficulties”? Hardly! Small families have their own difficulties, among them: loneliness, being the focus of all the negative attention from parents who are abusive or troubled.

Bad parents can have small families, too.