That doesn't change the fact that those voters who were older voted for risk or "change" and the young voted in a risk adverse manner.
That's because the young and stupid didn't
want change. The path that the liberals/democrats were going, they wanted to make everything free*. Sander's
entire platform was free stuff all around! Clinton's
entire platform was to continue down the path we are currently going (otherwise known as the "Preserve Obama's legacy" platform). You honestly think that a low labor participation rate, anemic growth (and it's only anemic because interest rates and inflation is so low. If interest rates/inflation was acting like normal, there would be
zero overall growth, more likely a prolonged recession for the past 8 years), and inflated government debt is good for a country, especially one as big as ours? Can you honestly say that, knowing your claim as being an economist, that this country has been doing good compared to other administrations,
including all 8 years of Bush II?
Do you honestly think or even claim that this whole situation that Obama and his administration has lead us wouldn't have given us results shown otherwise? If you do, then you are one of those liberal "elites" who's heads are so up in the clouds, only knowing their own personal gains but ignoring the plight of anyone around them.