Out with the old? Young Democrats are trying to convince voters to send a new generation to Congress

Part of the problem is that everything is seniority based. So even if some new upstart may better represent the will of their district, they won't be able to accomplish anything when compared to the person who's been in Congress for 30+ years.

I am convinced that the #1 problem in this country right now is the notion that having a primary challenger is somehow a sign of weakness.

I mean, it's absolutely a sign of weakness - which is to say, it's a sign that the incumbent isn't popular. The institutional response to an incumbent's unpopularity is to mask it by forcing rivals out of the primary process (as with Biden going uncontested in '24).

The House, in particular, is meant to be the body that is most responsive to the people, because they are theoretically accountable to them every two years.

In 1803, a single House Rep had a district of about 34,000 people. In 1903, a district held 193,167 people. In 1953, 334,587 people. In 2023, 761,169 people. These seats weren't great at representing large-ish constituencies 220 years ago. They're absolutely dogshit at it now. Members exist to represent the party on behalf of local party members not the people of the district. In many cases, a Rep is explicitly antagonistic towards minority members of their district in an attempt to curry favor with the majority.

The two year window is not about direct accountability to the district nearly so much as it is direct accountability towards the donor class that sponsors their campaigns. And the near-continuous need to fundraise in order to cover the cost of advertising and self-promotion within the district has turned House Reps into patronage positions of the most servile sort.

The problem with primaries, in the modern political equation, is that they drive up the cost for donors to hold any single seat. And for parties to control a House majority (as non-incumbents are more vulnerable to a seat flip).

So suppressing primaries, suppressing voter turnout, and suppressing opposition parties through gerrymandering are - at the end of the day - cost control measures for national parties and corporate interests.

I don’t particularly mind if there folks keep their jobs into their 70’s, as long as they really are the best person for that district.

They're the best because at that age they've proven themselves to be unfailingly loyal. This is, again, an issue of cost control and risk mitigation. Nobody who has been in the Senate for 50 years is going to pitch any curveballs. Nobody who has climbed to the top of the ladder in their House Committee is going to deviate far from their proven ideology.

Unlike with freshmen who can waffle erratically from their original campaign pledges (see: Fetterman and Sinema, for instance) the 70 year old multi-election incumbent - a la Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein - is very predictable.

Yes, politicians on both sides of the aisle really NEED to be primaried.

Yeah, having a primary challenge, and winning, is a sign of strength. Not having a challenge is, at best, just a sign of nothing. It's possibly a sign of weakness, if you used your power to prevent a challenge.

I mean, I'd argue the absolute lack of participation in primaries is the problem. In general complaining but doing nothing is the problem.

Nearly half the age of the average politician, but I hear you.

Personally, I don’t trust anyone older than a Millennial to come anywhere near being capable of relating to the struggle of the working class.

Yes, obviously there are wealthy individuals of all generations that couldn’t possibly relate regardless, however if you’re over 50 your view of this country was shaped by a completely different experience compared to those younger than you. In every way possible.

Until we force them out of office, unironically yes. One of the things those with power get off on is exploiting the vulnerable and powerless as a flex. It’s the same reason so many of them hung out on Trump-Epstein island back in the day. They enjoy rubbing our faces in the fact that they consistently do nothing to help us, and routinely sell out our best interests to the donor class.

neo-lib

Fun fact: modern liberals (for government interventions including economic interventions to remove impediments to individual freedom) aren't neoliberals (for free market, laissez-faire economics). You can learn this & more by looking shit up & using words right.

I'm a huge advocate of not voting, but the idea of Democrats my age or younger is tempting... I think people younger than me have some chance of ignoring Boomers and changing the direction of things.

But if they're Zionists, they can get fucked

Ultimately you need a constant flow of young people into power. Young people have new perspectives, more time with the consequences, and aren't suffering age related decline. One of the really destructive things the ussr did to itself was the decades of their leaders all being from the same generation and not training up younger people to take over

But the sell is to people who show up to primaries.

They love youth candidates, look how much support Fetterman and Sinoma got.

2020 primary.

11 people still had campaigns going when the first state voted. 18 people withdrew before the voting began.

Be the change you want to see?

(I know it's easier said than done.)

10 candidates for congress 2 in the senate. So it will only take ~50 election cycles at this rate to get rid of all of the older people. At which point Mai Vang and her peers should be 100 years older. Suffice to say they aren't making a dent in the problem. Not yet.

I mean I'm not going to disagree that a blanket all old must go all young must stay approach. Obviously trading Bernie Sanders for Rick Santorum would not be a good move.

That being said what does need to be dealt with is incumbancy bias as a whole. IE no matter how shitty they've been, the effect is over and over again keep the same guy regardless of how good or bad he is until he chooses to retire or drops dead.

The approach should be "replace the people who haven't been looking out for their people".

I dunno, dementia-riddled old fuck's is not my first choice to run the country. Being bought by donors is bad, but it's a different problem. Just cause we need to fix one problem, doesn't mean we should ignore all the other problems.

And that’s ignoring the tankie wankers in the thread who can’t shut up.

November will be a ride.