You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

seiryth ,

Could the democrats put someone under the age of 60 in place?

Trump is fucking awful. Republicans in general are awful and will set back that country another 20 years.

But Jesus, is an 80+ old guy the best the democrats have? He’s qualified, intelligent and experienced. But he’s also in an age bracket that’s easy to hang shit on, which is exactly what the Republicans need.

sentient_loom ,
@sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works avatar

At least under 70

prole ,
@prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

Could the democrats put someone under the age of 60 in place?

Can you wait 4 years while we narrowly avoid literal fascism? Jesus fucking Christ… We have the incumbent advantage, it would be foolish to give that up considering the clear and present danger that the alternative presents.

Biden wins a second term, and the Dems will have 4 years to choose a younger candidate to run next time.That is when we need to fight to make sure we don’t end up with another 80 year old, or with someone like Kamala Harris as our next choice.

SnowBunting ,

Agreed 💯

PixelatedSaturn ,

Yes, but Biden, he is a liability. I don’t believe any of those idiot stories about dementia or anything, but he is old. Campaigns are really demanding even for non geriatrics. If he slips too much and he will slip a lot, because that is what he was known for even in his best years, this could mean Trump. Having Trump again would be a disaster.

prole , (edited )
@prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

And what kind of optics do you think there’d be if the Democratic party pulled their incumbent candidate, and then what? Run Kamala Harris? No, not her?

So they pull both the incumbent candidate, and his (not super old) running mate? And replace them with whom?

You might not personally think that those actions are signs on weakness and/or disunity within the party, but people largely do. People have entire careers surrounding shaping those optics. This is important shit.

Maybe if there was already a young Democrat/progressive that the party and base has been coalescing around to be Biden’s successor. Right now, we have nobody.

PixelatedSaturn ,

The train has passed for that of course. Unless something happens to Biden in which case … they will have to do exactly that: find someone. What are the optics that the whole party has no one else, but a really old man anyway?

Before Biden announced it would be possible to get someone else.

the_post_of_tom_joad ,

8 years of Biden then 8 years of someone like Kamala Harris? This is the future were hoping for? Pardon me but that sounds horrifying.

I mean it is probably the long term plan of the dnc, along with another fascist bugaboo they ratfuck into the general election.

Here’s how i think it will go, based on the last few elections: If Trump is no longer a threat they’ll elevate desantis or someone similar and they’ll again ask us to “fight fascism” and “fight for democracy” by swallowing any desire to vote 3rd party and side with them, the “lesser of 2 evils”, once more.

If they succeed, they sit on their hands and continue their disastrous platform of “standing by the door and aggressively hand wringing” at the fascists while they march through.

This is the only thing they will ever do while they are one of only 2 (fully corrupted) political parties.

To think otherwise is to ignore recent history

rez_doggie ,

Acab yeah that means harris

ZeroEcks ,

Didn’t they just wait 4 years already? How many times do they have to wait 4 years?

prole ,
@prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yeah we had 4 years to come up with a better candidate, and we didn’t.

Totuustorvi ,

Can someone put into words why it seems impossible to find/nominate a proper (democrat) candidate out of the whole USA population?

Ever since Obama and maybe even before, it has been so difficult. What stops the good people from advancing.

hydrospanner ,

What stops the good people from advancing.

Democracy is, at its core, a popularity contest.

It’s a lot easier and more effective to be popular with deception and favors than by responsibility and moral fiber.

Therefore the only politicians who are able to succeed to the point that they get to the national level are those who have learned how the game works and play it with a combination of deceit and favors.

I’m not saying democracy is bad…in fact, of the various systems it competes with, it’s one of the best…but that doesn’t mean it’s flawless, and this is one of its many flaws.

VolatileExhaustPipe ,

Why are democratic countries that aren’t the USA manage to generate a wide set of qualified candidates which aren’t close to death (both Trump, Biden, Clinton, Sanders, Reagan, Bush)?

hydrospanner ,

First, my comment made no mention of age, only compromised morals.

To answer your question, though, I feel it’s a combination of population size, demographics, scale of representation, and the nature of the way the respective systems have evolved (both naturally and intentionally)

  • Population: The US has lots and lots of people spread out over a wide area. Lots of people mean that there’s lots of qualified people, and it follows that the older you get, the more time you’ve spent in this arena, therefore the more experience and connections you have.
  • Demographics: Simply put, Baby Boomers. There’s more of them than there are of anyone else, and they tend to elect their own.
  • Scale of Representation: US elected officials at the national level represent a huge number of constituents. This means that getting elected is more about appealing to a broad spectrum of voters, to the point that it’s often more about just being objectionable to the fewest voters. This is Joe Biden’s greatest strength: nobody really really likes the guy, but he’s someone that (among his base) not too many people actually dislike, or at least not enough to withhold their vote. It’s boring but effective within the situation, like trap hockey. Representation of such a wide and diverse group of people means that politicians won’t champion any agenda that might put off voters. A vote is a vote regardless of whether it’s lukewarm or zealous, and a thousand “meh” votes are drastically more valuable than a hundred fanatical votes.
  • The Nature of the Beast: like it or not, America has a two party, first past the post, winner take all system. This means that the game is very closed-ended, full of binary/Boolean strategy: A or B, vote or don’t vote, win the state completely or don’t win it at all. This ties in with the previous point and makes a campaign and election even more about being as inoffensive as possible.

So for a winner take all, nationwide race like president, the way the Xs and Os work out is that your party’s best odds come with someone who’s got lots of connections, is widely recognized, and whom the fewest people in your base will dislike enough to not vote for them. In the vast majority of cases, that means an old candidate who’s had decades of experience and network building, who has no controversial positions, odd personality quirks, etc., and who is just a hair more likeable to moderates than whomever the other party puts out there.

The only time in recent history this hasn’t been the case was 2016, in which Trump pulled more votes out of his base and the far right than anyone gave him credit for…and maybe 2000, although a decent argument could be made there that Clinton’s stigma hobbled Gore’s campaign just enough. With SCOTUS help.

Thus, you get usually old (experienced, well known), usually male, usually white, usually straight, usually at least vaguely religious, usually rather boring candidates.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •