Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

Link to comment

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

The youth is what I call, "The Lazy Generation".

Link to comment

 

 

If the Dems put out all these people in their 70s that have been hanging around the Presidential elections for a while, they are doomed to let Trump just be here for another 4 years.

 

I'm fine with Sanders, Biden and Warren running. But, they need some younger people in the race too to give their voters some options.

 

Warren is the only one I can see in any of this that might be able to run in her 70s and garner enough votes to win.

 

Good Lord...if they march Hillary up there again.......they deserve to be relegated to the "Also Ran" heap.

Why do you think Warren could win, but Biden and Sanders could not?

 

Biden has already been involved in the White House for 8 years and I think there is some fatigue with him.

 

Sanders is loved by his fans. There are some who could vote for him. But, there are one hell of a lot of people in the US that just view him as a loony toon old man who supports socialism.

 

Warren has been working hard in congress to support various liberal agendas. I think she could be packaged in a campaign as someone who is strong for the working class and women but not the crazy grandpa someone pulled out of the basement.

 

In order of chances of winning, I would put it as:

 

Warren

Biden

Sanders.

 

But, I think a charismatic younger person who is articulate and passionate for the liberal agenda would do better for the Democrats.

 

I'd like to add the following (not clear on their personal goals, so this is just my dersires after seeing them in action, and they're likely biased based on my personal agendas) but all bring youth:

  • Schiff
  • Harris
  • Moulton
  • Kennedy

I like Warren, she has done me well in MA, but (and I can say this because I'm a woman, but admittedly I cringe when I say it) she is shrill and I think even more so than Hillary will turn people (i.e. men) off. We need someone less polarizing.

Link to comment

 

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

The youth is what I call, "The Lazy Generation".

 

Said every generation ever.

  • Fire 8
Link to comment

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

I had this thought when Bernie was the most popular candidate among young voters. My then 17 and 19 year old brothers and their friends went to go and see him speak on the campaign trail. Those young people sure love that old guy.

Link to comment

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

Off the top of my head, I came up with 7 more that have been in the rumor mill (and wiki'd their ages). They all are 10+ (most 20+) years younger than the "big 3" mentioned above.

 

Kaine 59

Klobuchar 57

Harris 52

Gillabrand 50

Booker 48

Garcetti 46

Kander 36

Link to comment

Why the ageism? Bernie is no less forward-thinking, energetic, and progressive than any other possibility you could name. If anything, he's far more so than a guy like Cory Booker, but Booker could probably dunk I guess, so there's that.

 

Elections aren't a reality show (one hopes). If a worthy candidate falls short once, they're no less worthy the next time around. Boredom and a desire for new spectacle is our own undoing. Or are we not entertained?

 

Biden seems (of the names listed here) by far the most capable choice. I can't think of a younger person that is clearly more suited to the role, but I'm sure there will be some not wholly unworthy contenders.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Why the ageism?

Because as of 2014 the average male life expectancy in America was 78.9 years old, meaning Bernie is already living on statistically borrowed time. When I vote for a candidate, I should reasonably expect them to live to complete their four-year term. We can't legitimately have that expectation of a man that age.

 

That's not ageism, that's simple math.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

Why the ageism?

Because as of 2014 the average male life expectancy in America was 78.9 years old, meaning Bernie is already living on statistically borrowed time. When I vote for a candidate, I should reasonably expect them to live to complete their four-year term. We can't legitimately have that expectation of a man that age.

 

That's not ageism, that's simple math.

 

 

Being POTUS is the most stressful job in the world. Clinton/W/Obama were all mid 40s to mid 50s when elected. That seems to be a good age to take on the responsibilities. Reagan was developing Alzheimers during his 2nd term (he was 74 in 1985).

 

Bill Simmons used to have a bit where he would wonder why the NFL still hires football coaches that are in their 60s when they put in 12-16 hours/day. Same applies here IMO.

 

My parents and inlaws are all between 65 and 71. They can hardly make it through the day w/o taking a nap.

Link to comment

I'm dealing with aging parents that are the same age he would be while he is in office or towards the end of his term. My father used to be an extremely smart person that could think through very complicated subjects. It's very easy to see that he just can't do that any more.

 

Call it whatever "ism" you want. We are electing someone to be the leader of the free world (if the POTUS is still considered that when the current 71 year old leaves office). Pardon me if I really don't want someone with diminishing mental capacity in that office.

Link to comment

To take this age thing a step further, Congress is f'n old (especially Democrats).

 

Today the average American is 20 years younger than their representative in Congress. This should come as no surprise, considering that over the past 30 years the average age of a Member of Congress has increased with almost every new Congress.In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. This prompted us to take a further look at those graying averages.

 

Democratic leaders in the House are two decades older than Republican leaders.

 

The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72 years old, whereas the average age of Republican House leadership is 48 years old. This trend continues in House committee leadership with Republican chairmen averaging 59 years old and ranking Democrats averaging 68 years old.

 

 

houseleader.jpg?t=1498846238739&width=72

 

 

 

1/3 of Representatives over 60 represent districts with a median age of 35 or less.

 

There are 44 congressional districts in which the age of the Representative is more than double the median age of their constituents. Of these 44 Representatives, 38 won their last election by more than 60% of the vote. The following Representatives are particular outliers of this analysis.

 

 

table.jpg?t=1498846238739&width=720&heig

 

 

 

More than half of the Senators up for reelection in 2018 will be over the age of 65.

 

18 of the 33 Senators running for reelection in 2018 will be 65 or older. If they win, another six years in office would put Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Nelson, and Sanders well into their 80’s. Looking ahead at the 2020 elections, 21 of the 33 Senators running for reelection will be 65 or older.

 

 

update.jpg?t=1498846238739&width=720&hei

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Because as of 2014 the average male life expectancy in America was 78.9 years old

 

This is true of an infant male born today. But a 75 year old man in reasonably good health can expect to live a few more years. Bernie, on average, can expect to live to age 87. LINK :lol:

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that the Dems are viewed as the party for younger, progressive, forward thinking, energetic people who are excited about making the world a better place and that they appeal to the young voter...........but.......all their best candidates ( at this time) are in their 70s?

Off the top of my head, I came up with 7 more that have been in the rumor mill (and wiki'd their ages). They all are 10+ (most 20+) years younger than the "big 3" mentioned above.

 

Kaine 59

Klobuchar 57

Harris 52

Gillabrand 50

Booker 48

Garcetti 46

Kander 36

 

Yes, and this is the pool the Dems should draw from for their next run at the presidency. I think Kaine is kind of goofy but some of the others are good, solid individuals that could compete well. I think Booker being towards the top of that list.

Link to comment

 

 

 

If the Dems put out all these people in their 70s that have been hanging around the Presidential elections for a while, they are doomed to let Trump just be here for another 4 years.

 

I'm fine with Sanders, Biden and Warren running. But, they need some younger people in the race too to give their voters some options.

 

Warren is the only one I can see in any of this that might be able to run in her 70s and garner enough votes to win.

 

Good Lord...if they march Hillary up there again.......they deserve to be relegated to the "Also Ran" heap.

Why do you think Warren could win, but Biden and Sanders could not?

 

Biden has already been involved in the White House for 8 years and I think there is some fatigue with him.

 

Sanders is loved by his fans. There are some who could vote for him. But, there are one hell of a lot of people in the US that just view him as a loony toon old man who supports socialism.

 

Warren has been working hard in congress to support various liberal agendas. I think she could be packaged in a campaign as someone who is strong for the working class and women but not the crazy grandpa someone pulled out of the basement.

 

In order of chances of winning, I would put it as:

 

Warren

Biden

Sanders.

 

But, I think a charismatic younger person who is articulate and passionate for the liberal agenda would do better for the Democrats.

 

I'd like to add the following (not clear on their personal goals, so this is just my dersires after seeing them in action, and they're likely biased based on my personal agendas) but all bring youth:

  • Schiff
  • Harris
  • Moulton
  • Kennedy

I like Warren, she has done me well in MA, but (and I can say this because I'm a woman, but admittedly I cringe when I say it) she is shrill and I think even more so than Hillary will turn people (i.e. men) off. We need someone less polarizing.

 

I agree wt you - she does come across as some what shrill.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...