I don’t understand how anyone thinks an 81 year old person should be leader of a nation. And will they ever produce good stuff instead of what they’ve been trying and failing to do for so many years and it hurts the people.
When will they help the citizens instead of funding the military and fancy projects that waste money, cutting taxes for billionaires and raising them for the poor, cut social security, cut medicare, cut this, cut that, more money to the military.
So messed up.
I don’t know good places to find accurate news.
Focusing purely on the question in the headline, a party usually doesn’t put forward other candidates when the president runs for a second term. Incumbents often have certain advantages.
And I would guess if Biden dies before then or has some major issue then they might use Gavin Newsom.
If he dies, it’s Kamala Harris. There’s no time to get every Democrat behind any other option, and she polled better than Biden in that big NYT poll anyway.
Has she actually done much of anything at all? I mean I know you don’t normally hear much about what the vp is up to, but I really haven’t heard anything about Harris.
I doubt they’d run her. She hasn’t been very visible or popular.
they might use Gavin Newsom.
I’d say he’s too far to the left for the party, but not after his veto spree earlier this year.
That veto spree was an attempt to discredit him among liberals and it looks like it worked. Maybe it was an attempt to make him look more conservative, idk. He didn’t veto those bills because he disagreed with the ideas or didn’t essentially support them - he didn’t think they methods and details in the bills were sufficient.
Considering we have a two party system, game theory implies we will vote between the 81 year old guy who has some idea of what he is doing and the 77 year old guy who maybe just finally after seven years figured out how to start a fascist regime.
If we could somehow change the status quo, I’m not even certain who the “good candidates” would be. Warren is 74 and Sanders is 82.
Our media, gerrymandering and attention spans have led to a place where everyone who is famous and wants the job are criminally nuts.
Yeah I think I’ll stick with Biden until Harris and Newsom are ready to fight about who is next.
I don’t know a place to find accurate news.
What does this mean? You can’t just trust one need source. It starts with learning about political science and history. And learning more and more. And then reading multiple new sources. That’s the only way you’ll get context. Being engaged and having the background information.
There are a lot of popular Democratic governors who have had legislative success in their states over the past several years. They’re going to be the ones that have the best chance at a nomination in 2028. If Biden is re elected President and gets a Democratic Congress he’ll probably be able to do things that will make those governors even more popular.
If Trump is President I don’t think we have to worry about elections again.
Oh, and if Biden wins next year I think the Republican Party will go into full meltdown mode for the next several years, which will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party to flourish.
If Biden is re elected President and gets a Democratic Congress he’ll probably be able to do things that will make those governors even more popular.
Provided congress doesn’t do it’s usual “Whoopsie! We managed to find exactly enough votes to block this!” routine that they’ve been doing since at least 2009.
Yes. This isn’t about who is best. This is about maximizing chance for survival.
If a project just isn’t working, scrap it and start over.
And my comment about news was a request for good sources.
So I’m not in disagreement with you that it’s clear the project has at some point gone off the rails, and it might sound easier to just wipe the slate clean and start over. But there is no way that happens without a revolution or civil war either preceding of following that attempt, and that won’t even guarantee we get something good.
We’re in an extremely tight spot. Things must change drastically and quickly to avoid catastrophe but unless we’re really really careful we’ll end up in a somehow worse situation than even currently
OK, are you starting the revolution? Or waiting for someone else.
I’ll point out that amendments to the constitution will never me made positively and peacefully while states with their land vote more than people.
“Starting over” a country tends to result in a lot violence and bloodshed and quite often makes things worse.
The fact of the matter is that, for many many people, dealing with a somewhat shitty status quo is a much more attractive option than taking a gamble that a revolution doesn’t result in catastrophe, and you can’t really say they’re wrong for that.
Scrap what doesn’t work and keep what does.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. And it doesn’t have to be violent.
I mean, good luck with the tension between D and R, but companies can form and grow successful without blood or death (**there are some…).
Using the creation and growth of a company as my analogy is meant to remind that peolle work together all the time without bloodshed* to create great things.
Government could be that way if people cooperated and listened to each other.
If you’re expecting change and only focus on and vote during Presidential elections, you’re gonna have a bad time. Congress is in charge of all the budgetary concerns you’re talking about. Before the shit show of the current Congress, they passed the inflation reduction act which is huge for average Americans.
Even in the limited cases where Biden can make meaningful changes in the lives of Americans, like his plan for student loan forgiveness, the Republican nominated Supreme Court judges blocked it.
If your state has closed primaries, make sure you’re registered and vote during primaries. This is the only way progressive candidates will make it on the ballot.
As for the news, try listening to NPR Now when you have 5 minutes a day and go from there.
Would be great, but nobody has been groomed for it and with FPTP voting still in place in virtually all states, this is not the time to be selecting a different POTUS. The 2028 campaign should be planning now with the right candidate if your want a change, but you need to be working towards changing the voting process in your state.
Are there any other people being considered for president by Democrats?
You mean the DNC? Yes. For example, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson.
I don’t understand how anyone thinks an 81 year old person should be leader of a nation.
Biden isn’t even in the top ten of world leaders by age. Here they are:
President of Cameroon: 90 President of the PNA (Palestine, non-Hamas version): 88 King of Saudi Arabia: 87 Pope of the Vatican: 86 King of Norway: 86 Emir of Kuwait: 86 Supreme Leader of Iran: 84 Queen of Denmark: 83 President of Ireland: 82 President of Italy: 82
When will they help the citizens instead of funding the military and fancy projects that waste money, cutting taxes for billionaires and raising them for the poor, cut social security, cut medicare, cut this, cut that, more money to the military.
Who are “they”?
If you mean America’s leaders, never, not until we implement voting reform. Unless and until then, they will be fueled by corruption, not the will of the people. This is not politician specific, although there are rare exceptions, like Bernie Sanders.
I don’t know good places to find accurate news.
Reuters.
Reuters
There’s two big reasons Biden is going to be the candidate:
-
Biden has already won an election (3 if you count his time as VP). He’s been tried and tested and won. The system will always prefer the candidate who has proven they can win over someone who is untested. Thus, without some extreme circumstances, incumbents always have a huge advantage over newcomers.
-
Biden is an extremely experienced politician. He has more experience than most people in Washington, and is an expert at reaching across the isles and cooperating with other politicians. He knows the game like nobody else and he’s damn good at it. A good president has to work with those they agree with and those they disagree with, and Biden can do that.
The age question isn’t as serious as you think it is. The president is the leader and the face of the Executive Branch, but he isn’t the one doing all the work. There are tons of people around him who share the workload of the actual business of the Office of the President. It’s not a one man job.
As to your “when” question, the answer is when they can. We’re skating by on razor-thin margins right now, and have been for a long time. When our lawmaking body is split 51 vs 49, and you need 66 or more to pass any meaningful legislation, you need someone who is really good at reaching across the isle. And you also need lawmakers who are willing to compromise. What that means is that voting out the bad fanatics and voting in reasonable people of conscience is as important as ever. While one half of Congress is filled with fundamentalists, nothing will ever get done no matter who is president.
Biden is an extremely experienced politician. He has more experience than most people in Washington, and is an expert at reaching across the isles and cooperating with other politicians. He knows the game like nobody else and he’s damn good at it. A good president has to work with those they agree with and those they disagree with, and Biden can do that.
Just to put this in perspective over half of his much-vaunted experience predates the freaking internet. most of it is in a world that is fundamentally different than the world as it exists today.
You’re not wrong, but does that invalidate his experience? Most of the people he’s striking deals with are in that same boat. And as president, he surrounds himself with capable people who understand today’s world and help him navigate it. That’s what an intelligent, experienced person does.
I’m not saying it does.
Relevancy matters, though. And as far as what everyone else is doing, that’s their business.
As for him having people help out with things- that’s almost certainly what he’s doing - what makes you think a younger canidate can’t get the same kind of help in dealing with older politicians? (In fact, there’s a small army of people assisting Biden- or any president- with that, too.)
A younger candidate doesn’t have the decades of experience that Biden does.
Look, I’m not stumping for Biden here. I’m just answering OP’s question as to why he’s the candidate, and trying to alleviate some of the concerns that people have about his age.
-
I don’t understand how anyone thinks an 81 year old person should be leader of a nation. And will they ever produce good stuff instead of what they’ve been trying and failing to do for so many years and it hurts the people.
When will they help the citizens instead of funding the military and fancy projects that waste money, cutting taxes for billionaires and raising them for the poor, cut social security, cut medicare, cut this, cut that, more money to the military.
If you give me a list of only positives, then he looks great!
That’s not reality though. I do not want to discredit what he has done, but he has a strong support for military expansion as well.
Sure he hasn’t been perfect. But given how your criticism levied against him always paints him as someone who has done nothing for the average American, that list becomes a lot more relevant.
I would love for Biden to do better. I think we should continue to push him in that direction. But to describe his Presidency as a failure or somehow equivalent to Trump’s time in office is extremely dishonest.
I was criticizing a part of him. That doesnt mean I paint him entirely like that.
Where in your screed did you offer a nuanced view? All I saw was “bOTh SiDeS!”
Didn’t mention the other side. What part did you read that was like that? If I’m saying things “wrong” I would like to know what.
“Being considered by Democrats” meaning, there are Democrats thinking they should run, sure.
“Being considered by Democrats” meaning running in the Democratic primary for president, no. There are no serious candidates other than Biden running in the primary.
Trump didn’t have any substantial Republicans running against him when he was the incumbent president (IIRC they didn’t even hold Republican primaries in some states in 2020), he was similarly unpopular and happened to lose so who knows if it’s good strategy, but strong candidates usually wait for the incumbent in their party to lose or be term limited out.
When will they help the citizens instead of funding the military and fancy projects that waste money, cutting taxes for billionaires and raising them for the poor, cut social security, cut medicare, cut this, cut that, more money to the military.
For what it’s worth Biden hasn’t cut taxes for billionaires and he actually directed the IRS to focus on people making over $400k/yr, and targeted all tax increases to that same group. Neither party has cut social security or Medicare recently. Both parties have increased military spending so that’s a legit complaint.
Nope. No political party will voluntarily abandon a sitting elected official in an attempt to re-gain their seat.
While I acknowledge Biden’s age, his currently presumptive opponent is effectively just as old and makes as many verbal gaffs. I find it dishonest and misleading to only point out Biden’s age.
I was not tryong to be dishonest or misleading. Do I have to pull an “X (formally Twitter)” when I’m talking about someone? Biden is 81 (Trumps an old fart too). Biden is allowing war crimes to happen (Trump did bad stuff too. Biden ate a hamburger (Trump ate 3).
This isn’t a both-sides conversation.
Maybe it wasn’t your intent but there is a bias that seems to lean against Biden regarding age and mental capacity and the title of this post feeds into it. Everytime Biden shudders a little it’s plastered all over every news outlet for days. When Trump doesn’t remember who he ran against in 2020, that WW2 has already happened, or Jeb Bush didn’t get the US involved in Iraq it’s ignored. The only difference is one is President and the other desperately wants to be President (again) and is the presumptive Republican nominee.
Republicans said Biden was too old last time. If Trump wins this time, he will be older than Biden was when Biden took office. Not a peep from republicans, though. I agree they’re both too old to be in office, and if one is the other is too.
That is a common “phenomena” I see with Republicans. (Edit: and so many others too, D included)
Idk. I just want a president who grew up in my times, not pre-color TV times. Society is changing so quickly and we have people who bought a 4 bedroom home for 80,000 deciding if housing is too expensive, and they think of their experience and shrug cuz why don’t people do it like they did?
I need a president who lives paychexk-to-paycheck. Someone who can relate with the majority of the population.
I want someone who treats it like a video game and the goal is to get all the status bars to “happy”, not just military…
edit: all->some, Dr. Shiva and Claudia De La Cruz not included
Here is a list of
allsome:
Literally only heard of three: Biden, Trump, DeSantis.
Im guesing the others don’t stand a chance considering I’ve never heard of them and the presidency is also a popularity contest à la high school elections.
Get your name out and people remember it.
Kennedy is getting +20% on polls, so looking closer to 3-way race.
1yr out though so much can change.
If you follow politicial channels, most talk about them.
Trump/Biden/Kennedy are high up.
Vivek is doing better than Ron/Nikki.
Kennedy left democrats and gained independent people.
West/Jill are in the lower end, West left green party so support was lost. Jimmy Dore interviewed him, lost more support due to Jill/West platform strategy.
More are on the ballot, like Dr. Shiva 2024 and Claudia De la Cruz 2024.
I wonder, if it is a 3-way race, how many people will vote D/R because they are aftraid their I vote will be wasted.
True, but it can also be that they stay home.
It’s tradition to go with the President if that person still wants the job. He’d have to say he no longer wants to run for the party to consider other contenders. Ideally he will remember how old he is sometime in the next couple of months and a boring centrist like Newsom will run in his place.
It feels very much like the government doesn’t care about improving citizen’s lives. When will we overthrow this government that no longer works in the interest of the people?
Coups tend not to work out well for anyone most of the time.
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Bold by me
Systemic change is a different conversation than a new president. Personally I think that change can happen with modifications to the existing system. For instance, Ranked Choice Voting would give us a more diverse set of choices and doesn’t require throwing away things that do work.
Right. It doesn’t have to mean everything goes. Keep what works, change what doesn’t. It’s not all or nothing.
What’s your point? You think some pretty words will make it easier to pull off a successful coup and prevent the result from being worse than they are now?
My point is that it is in the declaration of independence. The forefathers themselves said of their government isnt working, we have the right to change it.
We dont have to be stuck with what we’ve got.
And to the critics and trolls that may respond: No, I don’t have a solution or plan. It seems like so many people expect the result when I start talking about step 1.
For people that are actually running no. I mean, theres Dean Philips but nobody has heard of him. Theres also Cenk Ugyhur but its not even clear if he can leagally run.
In terms of the larger democratic party there is only one person ive heard both sides of the fence speak favorably of. JB Pritzker of Illinois. But he isn’t running nor has he said he will.
Counting out Newsom and Whitmer. They are too hated to be able to win the presidency. I dont care if they are successful in their states.
There’s also Manchin but I believe if he runs he will go independent / No Labels Party. I do believe if he went against Trump as Democrat he would win. There are enough republicans and never-trumpers who will support him. Alas he has only hinted at a run, not confirmed anything.
I don’t think there is anyone else unless a celebrity or complete leftfield candidate shows up.
I’d say a large part is that older voters outvote younger ones by about 50%. (From what I remember, this advantage widens during the primary process, which is when parties select their candidates.)
With regards to Biden, he’s more likely to win elderly voters because A) they don’t see his age as as much of an issue as we might (think about trying to take Grandpa’s license) and B) his more moderate stances are more likely to sway elder voters who are a little put off with some of our more progressive candidates.
Basically, it’s a problem of our own making. If young people voted at similar rates to middle age and elderly voters, we’d probably have had a Sanders run in 2016, maybe 2020 but it’d be unlikely to be Biden.
I’d say a large part is that older voters outvote younger ones by about 50%.
From the first article "According to the exit polling, 18-to 29-year-olds accounted for 12% of voters in the midterms – the lowest share of the electorate compared to other age groups "
The second one includes those under 54 as “younger” voters.
Here’s a simple graph:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096299/voter-turnout-presidential-elections-by-age-historical/
You’ll notice that in 2020, the youngest, presumably most progressive voters votes at about 48%. The oldest, presumably most conservative voters, voted at a rate of 71.9% , or almost exactly one and a half times as much as their younger counter parts.
Ageism, yay!
[34 and younger can’t be president] yeah. the constitution already excludes people on age. not saying we should let 5yo’s run for office, or that age isn’t an awful metric, but, uh, it cuts both ways.
If the aim is to ensure that a person has a sufficient amount of life experience, that correlates exactly with age. That makes a minimum age requirement reasonable.
No it doesn’t.
Put another way, experience is different for everyone. Most of his experience predates the internet. It is fundamentally irrelevant to the modern world
Does that mean he’s the stereotypical technophobe boomer? No.
I’ve got a couple decades experience working. Doesn’t mean I’m qualified to be an a heart surgeon. The kind of experience matters, and it’s freshness.
Of course the quality of experience is different for everyone. That’s what voting is for. And we have a lower (minimum) threshold for the quantity of experience.
On the other hand, someone being 81 years old does not necessarily mean that they are experiencing mental or physical decline to a degree which should disqualify them from office. OP opened with:
I don’t understand how anyone thinks an 81 year old person should be leader of a nation.
I want to be clear that that’s what I am a bit rankled by. I’m definitely not trying to get in an Internet Fight™ with you. We’re having a respectful and reasoned debate, and I definitely see your points.
Ah. Understood. I appreciate the distinction there.
I do think that at a certain point, there needs to be a turnover in leadership. things are either stagnating, or they’re growing/developing. At a certain point, you have to stop and ask if it’s appropriate to let the next generations take up the wheel. Keep in mind, at this rate, the next president will not be gen x- we’ll skip them. (and remember, Biden is in fact in the Silent Gen, not a boomer.)
I have no good answers as to how to do that, without being a dick. but we’ve been voting from the same pool of people to be at the top since I’ve been alive, and the reason things seem so stagnant now is for exactly that reason. I’m not really worried about his absolute age, I’m worried about the lack of change and turnover, and worried that we can’t afford another twenty years of stasis. (climate change, for example, can’t afford for us to twiddle our fingers.)
There’s nothing at all wrong with voting based on how you feel someone will bring their own quality of experience to bear on political leadership. As above, that’s what voting is for. But the rise of fascism in America, along with our voting procedures (FPTP, electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression) means that voting solely on that basis can have unintended consequences.
The right wing in American politics has been artificially propped up by the structures around elections since day one, and the left wing has been suppressed. Those structures still exist, and we need to loudly express our political will to change them - and take the right wing thumb off the scales. And we have to do that while government still functions. It’s like rebuilding an engine while the car is driving down the interstate.
If the aim is to ensure that a person has a sufficient amount of life experience, that correlates exactly with age.
Would you say that Trump’s life experience qualified him for the job?
Amount, quantity. Not quality.
Do you think that the quantity of Trump’s experience qualifies him for the job?
One must be at least 35 years old to qualify for the office of president. Trump meets that qualification. There are others, most notably the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which, in a sane world, would disqualify him.
But I suspect that you’re using the word “qualifies” in a colloquial sense, and not a legal one. Donald Trump is a fascist, and since fascism is in direct contradiction to democracy, no, I do not believe that Donald Trump is colloquially qualified to be president.
Donald Trump is a fascist, and since fascism is in direct contradiction to democracy, no, I do not believe that Donald Trump is colloquially qualified to be president.
But at least he’s not some wet behind the ears 34 year old. That would be the real nightmare scenario.
