I wish her the best of luck.
I still expect Harris 2028 because “it’s her turn”
But hey, maybe there’s hope on the horizon
Dem leadership is positioning themselves behind Gavin Newsom. They should be backing AOC but she’s too “woke” in their eyes.
Exactly. The leadership has already picked Newsom, you can tell because he is already moving to the center.
Harris lacks a key, critical asset to win the Presidency in today’s America: a penis. Newsom already has one, so is any a clear advantage.
Harris’s issue was she kept telling people who can’t afford their rent and groceries that the economy is better than ever. She ran a dog shit centrist campaign that did nothing to motivate voters. Harris represented the status quo, same with Newsom. Both will get absolutely shredded in 2028 if they run.
Courting a fucking Cheny didn’t help matters
This
Let’s totally ignore that Hillary got the popular vote the first time and if the US didn’t have the E.C. than history would’ve been quite different.
None of this is relevant. Neither party wants to change the voting system so only winning the popular vote is matters
According to the two books written about Biden’s mental decline, one of the main defenses people close to the president used was, “If he drops out, you get Harris, and then we’ll lose for sure.” I’m sure they’ll pick some low talent party loyalist who has been waiting patiently, but it seems even the party leadership never wanted it to be her turn.
There’s no way they’ll run Harris again, if they do the backlash will cause them to change course.
AOC most likely, with the slim chance someone better steps up before then.
No chance of AOC because she’s vilified by the right and it’s important to appeal to voters who won’t vote for you.
They don’t have anything though and she can handle herself. Calling someone a bartender can only get you so far and all it does is humanise her anyway.
Her views are significantly more popular, even amongst people who don’t (usually) vote and the right (when they don’t know it’s a liberal proposing it).
The right vilifies every prominent Democrat.
The real reason is that she will scare the corporate overlords
If you guys really want this revolution you keep talking about, forget the presidency…for now. Social change begins at the bottom. The country has turned too damn far right to make any progress nationally. Focus on city council, planning commissions, especially school and library boards. Change will flow upward storm there.
I think Democrats subservience to wealthy donors is even more our downfall.
Every wealthy donor who doesn’t want the government packed full of fascists should be pushing their representatives for significant and meaningful campaign finance reform.
It’s too bad that they’d be giving up some of their influence, but at this point, everyone should be able to see that it’s becoming a matter of physical safety.
Hell yeah brother
They don’t care if fascists are in office. Maybe they will be bummed that their queer assistant gets gulaged, but at the end of the day all the donor class cares about are quarterly income reports.
There’s the targeted message of the month!
ANYONE who says that this is “ageist” should be forced to give up ALL their technology and advancements from the last 150 years and given the consequences for it. Any complaints? We will call you ageist and punish you. Seriously, ANYONE who makes this argument when it comes to politicians is less than useless. They should be mocked and laughed at
Can you explain what you mean by this?
The older I get the more I favor unions because they seem to support the idea of seniority. However, assigning benefits based on seniority doesn’t seem like a very effective solution for a well functioning system. Gotta hand it to the Republicans. They ran with a crazy ass fucking disrupter and it’s worked for them. Wish the democrats had the balls to roll with Bernie 9 years ago.
Anyone here running for anything?
I’ve been on a school board, PTSOs, volunteer regularly, coached traveling soccer (it doesn’t pay anything) for over a decade. I didn’t have enough time to run for any office but i go to every other town board meeting and i show up to school board meetings semi regularly.
I’m a “child of the internet” and would more than likely be the cause of the left and right uniting in their disgust of me for some dumb thing I did/said like 20 years ago lol
Too scatterbrained to be a good public speaker. Helped launch a disability rights org and lobbied government instead (with reports and scathing tweets instead of money). Organised grassroots pressure is surprisingly effective, would recommend.
So the answer is to be ageist instead of administering civics and leadership ability test to the prospective candidates
Got it. Swap bigotry for bigotry.
Way to do better, people
A bunch of rich 80-year-olds should not be running our country. It’s why the response to Trump has been so anemic: they’re too comfortable and they can’t be bothered.
In other words, it cannot be exclusively one narrow demographic. That’s not ageism; that’s just common sense.
What is it going to take before people like to join reality? A sitting member of Congress with full-blown dementia? We had that in Dianne Feinstein. A president who can’t function past 6 pm or speak without a teleprompter? We had that with Biden. Democrats dropping dead in office? The Republicans have expanded their House lead this term because three Democrats dropped dead. Our country is collapsing under an incompetent gerontocracy, and you think pointing that out is bigotry? Get a fucking grip, dude.
Reading the article I don’t see any support for your argument. It just seems like a arsenal strawman.
The article talks about getting more young people into political positions, and about having politicians generally stay in office until they die of old age is causing political stagnation.
It’s not like it argues you can’t serve past a certain age, just that it shouldn’t be an exclusive old-people’s club.
Stop gaslighting.
If that’s what this article was, that’s what it would say.
But you And I read the article. Time to take the keys from grandpa, he squinted at the t. V .
That’s what it says.
Shut up. Not all of us want to live in a gerontocracy.
I don’t think seniority and ageism are the same thing, but a lot of proponents and opponents will take it that way. I think it’s really about how positions of leadership are parceled out based on time served.
Seniority and ageism are not
This isn’t about seniority. Its a blatant and bigoted ageism piece. Lipstick on a pig, but hey it’s just old people who have given their lives.
Screw them. After x age they should go
That’s what this, and you , are truly saying.
Goof day
At the moment they are pretty much the same thing. The big shitty bill passed the House because three House Democrats died in office so far this term. Is that not a problem?
We would not have so much aged representation if the party didn’t put so much favor on seniority. We can have some old leadership, which is actually a good thing, but the party currently looks like a make a wish foundation for elderly politicians.
The difference is that there are only so many of these elected political jobs. The only way for younger people to get direct experience is to run for them. And particularly for Congress, where there are only 435 seats nationwide and their districts were likely drawn to favor one party or another – in many districts, the primary is the election.
Yes, these people are advocating for the older generation to step aside. But even if they don’t, they are advocating that a healthy party should have meaningful primaries for every position, and have every incumbent (including those older politicians) actively defend their seats if they want to keep them. I bet that if an older politician is with it enough to win a contested primary, even these folks would support them in the general election. (Plus, that losing candidate would have had experience running that contested election, so they can do better next time.)
Bottom line, it’s basically the exact same intentional misinterpretation that the right does with DEI.
IE what DEI actually calls for: Look for candidates everywhere, give a shot to them all regardless of race or background.
What they act like it is: “You have to pick the minority candidate no matter how underqualified he/she is”.
Same concept as the left wants for our candidates. What we want isn’t an auto force out the old guys… we want actual fair competitions that picks candidates by their actual abilities and skills, rather than just the assumption that the person who’s had that seat for 30 years, should keep it over a new person that wants the job.
Who did you vote for in the primary?
It’s not different. .it’s lobbying for unelected people to decide in the shadows what should be done loudly on television by people we directly voted for
Anything else is trump. 2.0
No, it’s the exact opposite of what you claim, it’s encouraging young people to run for office even if an older incumbent is in the seat, and let voters decide in meaningful primaries.
unelected people to decide in the shadows what should be done loudly on television by people we directly voted for
What the fuck are you even talking about
Saying primaries are “shadowy” and the DNC just decides who’s going to win before any are even run.
Which isn’t the case, but DWS really did a number on people’s heads.
Dancing with smurfs?
People who will not have to live with the consequences of their political decisions, on account of likely dying before the bill is due, have no business being in office. It places too great of a conflict of interest and supports the Chicago School economic bullshit of never looking past the current quarter. Sure, there are a good chunk of people who would aim for long-term stability out of altruism but they are not generally those who seek to hold political power until they die.
It’s really past time for boomers and the silent generation to allow the rest of us to determine our own fates, rather than continuing to take loans out on their grandchildrens’ futures (that we’re stuck paying for).
lol you gotta knock it off with the borrowed outrage. That’s not what this is. It’s a rational and pertinent complaint about how our political system tends to operate.
Keep being the problem then. You’re out of touch with the supermajority of people by 70. Stop fucking lying to yourself and others.
Would you like to have an 80 year old surgeon performing your brain surgery? These ghouls are all stuck in the 50’s and 60’s and have zero clue what actual people need. The Democrats clearly need fresh blood since they keep getting stomped in key races
Get the fuck out of here. Bigotry is judging people before you know them. We know who the democratic leadership is. There are plenty of old progressives, and almost none of them are running for something. You need young people to get involved in order to replace the old people who have died.
A:“I propose we buy the military $1 million dollars worth of 200-lb canons”
B:“No grandpa it’s not 1865 anymore”
A:“That’s AgIsT!!¡!¡¡”
ageist
I think I’ve literally only ever seen this word used by idiots trying to defend people 20 years too old to be doing their job
It is joy age discrimination to say “you’re likely to die in office, fuck off” and if you think it is then your right to vote should be stripped for being a fucking idiot
