Run for Something co-founder: ‘Democrats’ reliance on seniority is our downfall’
Run for Something co-founder: ‘Democrats’ reliance on seniority is our downfall’
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Keep being the problem then. You’re out of touch with the supermajority of people by 70. Stop fucking lying to yourself and others.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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.