this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
522 points (99.4% liked)

politics

28244 readers
1599 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
522
Out with the old? Young Democrats are trying to convince voters to send a new generation to Congress (apnews.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In Trump’s first term, grassroots Democrats focused their ire on the Republican president. But now, after President Joe Biden’s reluctance to step aside in 2024 at age 81 helped pave the way for Trump’s return to the White House, many see their party’s own veterans as part of the problem.

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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. Yes, even more important than the creeping fascism, because it directly enables it. Even the opposition may be inclined to keep the creeping fascism creeping along if it guarantees they can keep their job.

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. But if you are in a heavily gerrymandered district, and can ensure that you never see a Primary challenge, then it is essentially a lifetime appointment.

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. But if they never get any meaningful primary challenge how would we know?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

AOC did it.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago

And Max Frost.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

That is correct coupled with how everything is gamified and that it’s statistically more like for an incumbent to win. Game theory, while a valid field of study, has really fucked us over

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because Congress and Senate should have 2 term limits. These old cunts just look after themselves.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The term limit is the election. Or should be anyway.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not in a corrupt system where politicians buy votes with more power they get as they get older in office. Some of these assholes die of old age in office and people still want to elect them.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Not in a corrupt system where politicians buy votes

Then you ha e a stupid voter problem

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] hraegsvelmir@ani.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s absolutely a sign of weakness - which is to say, it’s a sign that the incumbent isn’t popular.

It doesn't have to be, though. Even framing it this way is kind of playing into the DNC's hand on this matter. A primary just means that other people think they could do a better job of it than the incumbent, for whatever reason. It could be that the incumbent is unpopular, but it could also be that the challenger brings a new perspective or new knowledge to the table that makes them more suitable to hold the office. It could just be someone who wasn't eligible to run in the previous election for that position, but they are now.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

A primary just means that other people think they could do a better job of it than the incumbent

Vanity campaigns are consistently the worst

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 5 points 1 week ago

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

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Love how 40s to 50s is what we consider a young politician theee days. It's a start, but sad

[–] notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Millennials are between 34 and 45 now, not too far off

[–] notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, and that’s why I set 50 as the age limit in my opinion.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

That's fair you did indeed

[–] BigTuffAl@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago

🙄 does the neo-lib political caste have to be this in-your-face about how irrelevant they are?

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I say this as a person with plenty of years. When the president is so ancient he is shitting himself at meetings, and congresspeople are dying in office - of old age- this has become a gerontocracy of the worst sort. One would hope that as people get older they have more experience, more perspective.

At this point I would very strongly prefer that people younger than me be in office and I'm not even 60 yet. We need people with more stake in the future. 40-60 then out, retire for the sake of the country. Write a book or something.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

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

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's going to be a tough sell. The DNC is convinced the way to avoid bleeding seats is to move to the right and keep the same old white people.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

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

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When was the last time the Democrats had a really broad field of choices in the primary? I remember the Republican primaries leading up to the '16 election, the field was huge. And Trump crushed them all. I feel like Democrats haven't had much choice in way too long.

[–] TacoSocks 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

2020 primary.

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

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If someone progressive would run in my extremely-gerrymandered rural midwest district's primary, that would be fantastic

[–] tubthumper@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Be the change you want to see?

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

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

I know it's easier said than done

especially since I'm an overseas voter who has zero desire to live in the US again, but still needs to maintain citizenship and thus has all kinds of dumb tax issues thanks to US bullshit.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago

I'm an old guy, and I'm all for kicking out the weak old cowardly Democrats, and replacing them with strong, angry young people. They are pissed about past generations losing Democracy, and they are stepping up to take it back. They have my full support.

I will always primary vote for a young person like AOC or Max Frost, before I'll vote for smug old incumbent. Time to term limit a LOT of these losers.

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Kristi Burke, a 20 something year old, is running for congress in DEEP RED Tennessee
https://www.votekristiburke.com/
Her website (she also sells anti-ICE merch!! )
ig

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Le sigh. It's not like younger people are not susceptible to the problems of being captured by the donor class.

JFC, focusing on age is one of the dumbest fucking takes going. I get it if people take issue with certain individuals that happen to be older, but drawing some arbitrary line at number of times around the sun and saying "boomer bad" is just idiotic.

I cannot help but think that this is some kind of psyop.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 11 points 1 week ago

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".

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

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

November will be a ride.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

American politics is the only field where a 40 year old person seems like a baby.

[–] blueworld@piefed.world 5 points 1 week ago

Mai Vang, a Sacramento council member running for California's 7th Congressional District, has her campaign website at maiforus.com

Evan Turnage, an antitrust lawyer challenging Mississippi's 2nd District incumbent, has his campaign website at evanturnage.com

Justin Pearson, a Tennessee state representative running for the 9th Congressional District, has his campaign website at votejustinj.com

Luke Bronin, former Hartford mayor challenging Connecticut's 1st District incumbent, has his campaign website at broninforcongress.com

Kore beyond the article:

Deja Foxx, a Gen Z candidate running for Arizona's 7th Congressional District (special election), has her campaign website at dejafoxx.com

Jake Rakov, a 37-year-old political strategist challenging 15-term incumbent Brad Sherman in California's 32nd Congressional District, has his campaign website at jakeforcongress.com

George Hornedo, a 34-year-old former Obama administration and Buttigieg campaign staffer running in Indiana's 7th Congressional District, has his campaign website at georgehornedo.com

Sara Innamorato, a first-time candidate is running against Dom Costa in Pennsylvania’s House District 21.

On the Senate side:

Graham Platner (Maine), a 42-year-old Marine and Army veteran challenging 74-year-old incumbent Susan Collins. His campaign website is grahampforusenate.com

Nathan Sage (Iowa), a Marine veteran and mechanic challenging 56-year-old incumbent Joni Ernst. His campaign website is sageforsenate.com

Mallory McMorrow (Michigan), a state senator running for the open seat previously held by 68-year-old Gary Peters. Her campaign website is mcmorrowformichigan.com

Zach Wahls (Iowa), a state senator challenging for the U.S. Senate seat, has his campaign website at wahlsforsenate.com 

Good to see some candidates taking a crack at the gerontocracy

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It’s time for a change, time for youth to take the helm and direct this nation and fix the broken democratic system for the good.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Am old but have seen guys older than me really fucking things up, so sure, get some younger folks interested and into it.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not a huge fan of electoral politics but I have met Mai Vang a few times and I believe her convictions are real. Whether they will survive contact with a system designed to grind them down I can't say but she's by far the best person in the sac city council currently and I don't doubt she would be one of the most progressive members of congress.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

I think if politics are overhauled, we should have political stations as a career track, with term limits at every level. Each term lasts four years, and each level has two terms if elections are won. However, losing an election reduces the number of terms you can have at a level. So if you suck and lose two elections at a rung, you don't have any more terms for it.

In effect, a quick political ascension can be a trap of sorts: Greedy politicians have fewer opportunities to accumulate power and set down lasting roots, and voters will see these politicians avoiding the responsibilities of lower stations. People are more likely to vote for someone who sticks around for two whole terms.