Look I get it, I also wanted someone different than Biden in 2020. But I truly don’t think it’s sane political strategy to run a different democratic candidate when you already have a sitting democratic president who’s able to run for another term. The loss of the incumbent advantage is way higher than any benefit a new candidate would bring (from a voter turnout perspective, not a policy one). People would be rightly furious if the Democrats ran a new guy only to lose to trump based on name recognition alone.
That’s true of both of them, thereby making your point moot.
If you really want to change this, run in your local elections, and state elections. You can change far more at the local level than the federal, by design.
The wish for one party to select somebody under 80 years old is not moot just because the other party is likely going to select an 80+ year old. Especially if there is a sizable voter block who are more easily swayed to vote for someone under 50.
How does local voting make it more likely to get younger presidents? I’m not sure I understand that point.
The reason the right has been able to push Christo-Nationalism into the highest levels of government is because they started small 50 years ago. You can’t just plop radical in the highest office and expect anything big to change. You need to slowly fill in the lower ranks and brainwash constituents at a local level until the process naturally begins to favor trumpian candidates, at which point a dictator is bound to eventually emerge with the full, unwavering support of a large chunk of the populous. The American left is half a century behind the fascists. It’s not about any one candidate, it’s about altering the political ecosystem to make it more favorable to your ideology.
You expect progressives to take 50 years what took the corpodems less. I’m not sure what you’re having a hard time following. In any event, centrists sling abuse when they aren’t capable of countering an argument, so I accept your concession. Have a blessed day.
I expect nothing. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings by saying that people 50 years ago dropped the ball, but thems the facts. We’re clearly talking past each other, so why don’t you go jack off or whatever teenagers do in their spare time these days.
Local voting is how you get change in general to happen. The federal government is setup to resist change. The local governments aren’t. If you want a young Presidential candidate in a decade or two, find a 20-25 year old you trust to be mayor now, and then either a state level senator, or governor.
I’m not disagreeing. It just doesn’t add to the point in my opinion. We are talking about now, and local governments (in my anecdotal experience) are in no way as old as recent national politicians.
Look I get it, I also wanted someone different than Biden in 2020. But I truly don’t think it’s sane political strategy to run a different democratic candidate when you already have a sitting democratic president who’s able to run for another term. The loss of the incumbent advantage is way higher than any benefit a new candidate would bring (from a voter turnout perspective, not a policy one). People would be rightly furious if the Democrats ran a new guy only to lose to trump based on name recognition alone.
I think it’s the sane option when said candidate is 80 years old.
Most people are in a care home or dead at that age.
That’s true of both of them, thereby making your point moot.
If you really want to change this, run in your local elections, and state elections. You can change far more at the local level than the federal, by design.
Henry Cuellar.
The wish for one party to select somebody under 80 years old is not moot just because the other party is likely going to select an 80+ year old. Especially if there is a sizable voter block who are more easily swayed to vote for someone under 50.
How does local voting make it more likely to get younger presidents? I’m not sure I understand that point.
The reason the right has been able to push Christo-Nationalism into the highest levels of government is because they started small 50 years ago. You can’t just plop radical in the highest office and expect anything big to change. You need to slowly fill in the lower ranks and brainwash constituents at a local level until the process naturally begins to favor trumpian candidates, at which point a dictator is bound to eventually emerge with the full, unwavering support of a large chunk of the populous. The American left is half a century behind the fascists. It’s not about any one candidate, it’s about altering the political ecosystem to make it more favorable to your ideology.
Democrats switched to corporate garbage in way less than 50 years.
Your comment addresses nothing I said and actively lowers the quality of conversation in this thread.
deleted by creator
You expect progressives to take 50 years what took the corpodems less. I’m not sure what you’re having a hard time following. In any event, centrists sling abuse when they aren’t capable of countering an argument, so I accept your concession. Have a blessed day.
I expect nothing. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings by saying that people 50 years ago dropped the ball, but thems the facts. We’re clearly talking past each other, so why don’t you go jack off or whatever teenagers do in their spare time these days.
Local voting is how you get change in general to happen. The federal government is setup to resist change. The local governments aren’t. If you want a young Presidential candidate in a decade or two, find a 20-25 year old you trust to be mayor now, and then either a state level senator, or governor.
I’m not disagreeing. It just doesn’t add to the point in my opinion. We are talking about now, and local governments (in my anecdotal experience) are in no way as old as recent national politicians.
Democrats are useless on purpose and intend to always be.
I hope Unions do the good that Democrats refuse to.
Bloomberg or Delaney?