this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
277 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19237 readers
2071 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Younger House Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Angie Craig, are challenging senior members for powerful committee roles, signaling a shift from the party's tradition of prioritizing seniority.

High-profile contests, such as for the Oversight Committee's top Democrat, reflect tensions following Democrats' 2024 election losses and frustration with long-standing leadership practices.

Critics argue fresh leadership is needed to counter Donald Trump’s return, while others stress the value of experience and institutional knowledge.

The debate highlights a generational shift and growing demands for change within the Democratic Party.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 122 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It is kind of insane that most of the examples are of 60 year olds challenging the 75 year olds.

One of the young ones is in their 50s, and one example is of an early 70s challenging a later 70s.

Only one in the whole lot I would think of as "young" (35).

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is what happens in a one party system, old those who have been there longest have the power. Which is why we keep getting old white guys for president

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That and half the country is too biggoted to vote for a woman of color.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's not why she lost. The sexist vote is going to go Republican, regardless of what Democrat is running. Whatever votes she might have lost because of her gender would be made up for with enthusiasm for the first woman president, if only she was someone who could inspire enthusiasm.

Too bad the Democrats didn't make the election a referendum on the healthcare system. It suddenly seems like that's what the "moderate" voters she was going for actually care about. Someone should have suggested that.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We spent the whole 2020 primary talking about it for it to be promptly forgotten about and now with what appears to be an across the board anger about health insurance the only message we get from anyone in power is that it's important people in suits don't get murdered.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

The ACA made the Health insurance industry into one of the biggest profit generating machines in the country. That brought in the Wall Street greed machine and tons of lobbying cash. Now it's entrenched and the Democrats are afraid to touch it.

The ACA brought in some much needed reforms, but the cost we paid might mean the collapse of the whole system. It was another massive cash transfer to the wealthy at a time when wealth inequality was already out of control. Once that cash starts flowing, shutting off the taps takes backbone, and most Democrats don't have those. Wall Street now feels entitled to those earnings forever.

[–] ryathal 10 points 1 week ago

Since you have to be 25/30 to be a rep/senator, I think it's fair to consider 40 and under young. US politicians are stupidly old though.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Fucking good. This attitude of waiting your turn and rewarding loyalty over ability is how we wound up with an incompetent gerontocracy. Imagine if the party hadn't tried to anoint Hillary Clinton, didn't coordinate around Biden in 2020, forced Biden to face a real primary in 2024...and that's just the Presidential races. Remember when Dianne Feinstein was so confused that someone had to tell her how to vote during an Appropriations Committee Meeting? We can't keep giving Democrats power because it's, "their turn."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought you were going to mention the time Feinstein had to be told that they were announcing she wouldn't be running again at that press conference. Should have resigned that day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Oh man, I missed that one. I considered mentioning the time she hugged Lindsey Graham at the Amy Coney Barrett hearing because she apparently thought Barrett was a Democrat, or the time she left the Senate for 3 months because of shingles and, when a reporter questioned her on it, claimed she'd never left. In the end, I just picked the simplest example in the interest of brevity. Also, Jerry Nadler is only just now being forced out of the Judiciary Committee, and he shit himself on live TV a few years ago.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago

I want to retire. Not now, but eventually.

I want my legislators to share that view, to understand that view, to support that view. Which means they won't be participating in professional politics after the age of 65.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if appointments weren't based on how long someone has been in their position. There's a strategic disadvantage to voting in newer candidates versus incumbents.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah. Younger people are less likely to capitulate and call it compromise.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I was commenting more on the fact that seniority grants higher level positions on committees.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There’s a strategic disadvantage to voting in newer candidates versus incumbents.

Not if you want to retire. Not if you want your representatives to understand and share the viewpoint that retirement is good, and working yourself into the grave is bad. If they understand that, they won't be around to remain incumbents. If those representatives are still around, it is advantageous to vote in newer candidates over the workaholic incumbents.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Tbh seniority stops being a good idea at, like, 30. The older you are the more likely you've let yourself stop thinking or get out of touch.

[–] ryathal 3 points 1 week ago

You can't even be a senator until 30 though, what should happen is anything more than 2 terms is equally senior.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

Or have already accomplished any real leadership you could have on an issue. At some point you've either given up or everything is how you'd like it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Yeah, Dems really need to embrace people under 60 to make a difference here. I get that they've only been following the money for a while. For them to be a viable party, it's time for change.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Good and about time and I hope these old neo liberals GTFO.