What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

I've no idea - but again it's not my point and I think you've glommed onto "grandee" a bit too much

For example, the average age of the Democratic leadership in the House is almost 75, for Republicans it's about 45. For chairs there's still about a decade difference between the parties.

The Democrats have had at least two presidential elections where their main candidates are all well into their seventies. They don't seem to have many young rising stars coming up.

That's an institutional failure - I think at this point it looks like political negligence. My point isn't that the grandees are deliberately backing older candidates, but that they're more responsible for the institutions of Democratic party than anyone else and that it's producing these results. I'd also note that it is comfortable for them - seniority, team players who know their turn etc.

And on incumbency it's not about unseating an incumbent, but it can be about encouraging them to retire - finding other "useful" work for them to do which lets you fill that safe spot and offer to someone who's a little more lean and hungry.

[The Larch]

From the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.

Maybe that's a bit of a side-effect of the Obama era? Given that Obama was 48 when he became President and 56 when he left the position he could be seen as "jumping the line" over a number of more senior Democrats at the time like Hillary Clinton, and once he was out he was a politically spent force at an age when, had he not "jumped the line", it'd be his "turn", so to speak. Maybe you can trace the failure of the Democrat big wigs to not being able to produce a better candidate than Hillary/doubling down on Hillary after she had been defeated by Obama back in the day to run against Trump back in the 2016 elections.

[Admiral Yi]

Sure, if you think Pelosi and Schumer are too old, then you can call that an institutional failure, since they're voted on by the House and Senate caucuses.

But presidential candidates are chosen by the primary electorate.  AFAIK the DNC doesn't supply funds for presidential primary candidates.

If you want voters to vote for younger candidates, and it's the fault of Pelosi and Schumer that they don't, that's kind of bizarre.

[Jacob]

Sure, if you think Pelosi and Schumer are too old, then you can call that an institutional failure, since they're voted on by the House and Senate caucuses.

But presidential candidates are chosen by the primary electorate.  AFAIK the DNC doesn't supply funds for presidential primary candidates.

If you want voters to vote for younger candidates, and it's the fault of Pelosi and Schumer that they don't, that's kind of bizarre.

Do you think that the Democrats are a little anemic in their response to the current political landscape in the US?

If so, what do you think the causes may be?

Do you think the leadership of the party has some responsibility here, even if they shouldn't shoulder the entirety of the blame?

[The Larch]

Let's do a bit of a morbid thought exercise. Should Biden croak, retire or just refuse to run for a 2nd term, who would be the Democrat forerunners for the Presidency?

One would think that the foremost candidate would be Harris, and the VP spot is a great launching spot for a future shot at the presidency. When she was picked as VP I assumed that was the intended path for her, to use the VP spot to raise her profile and status so she'd be the almost uncontested Dem presidential candidate once Biden was out, but I don't know if she's there yet or if she's popular enough.

Bernie? He'd be 83 (he's even older than Biden), one would think he would/should be out of the picture by now. To think if he's a realistic candidate or only on it to move the needle for the party should be besides the point.

Warren? She'd be 74, almost anywhere else in the world she should be considering retirement rather than thinking of running for the country's presidency.

Buttigieg? At 42 he would be quite the youngster in comparison with the rest of the slate of candidates, and now he'd have government experience rather than being a small town major.

Booker? He's failed in the past, but that hasn't deterred others. He keeps raking up Senate experience, but I don't know if he can raise his profile enough for a successful run at the presidency.

Besides those, who else can run for the Dem nomination? Any prominent state governors, such as Newsom, maybe? Some other Senator or Representative? Some old glory that could be convinced to run again for one last shot, like Kerry or Gore? Someone from outside politics that could run as a Democrat?

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's keep in mind that the leading candidates for the GOP are Donald Trump, a non-Republican for most of his life who never held any office before 2017, and Ron DeSantis, until a couple of years ago a no-name Congressman.

Among younger Dem, there's Beshear (Gov KY), the 2 new Gerogia Senators, Sen. Lujan in NM, Sen Duckworth (Ill - Iraq war vet); Chris Murphy (CT).  Mark Kelley (Mr. Gabby Giffords) from AZ is also a vet although a little older.  Tons of House members, some of whom have interesting resumes.

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think that the Democrats are a little anemic in their response to the current political landscape in the US?

If so, what do you think the causes may be?

Do you think the leadership of the party has some responsibility here, even if they shouldn't shoulder the entirety of the blame?

As I said before, "messaging" is not that important to me.  I care about outcomes, which means policies, spending initiatives, changes to laws, changes to tax codes, etc. 

I was thinking before about successful Democratic messaging.  Bubba says "hope," Barry says "change" and girls throw their panties on the stage and guys scream themselves hoarse.  That stuff just made me chuckle.

A lot of messaging from the left wing is about who they see as villains: the rich, corporations, transphobes, to name a few.  None of those work for me personally.

The one area I think should be talked about a lot more, and I hope Democrats will do this come election season, is that Republicans represent a threat to democracy.

[DGuller]

The problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix).  With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix).  With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.

If someone can come up with some catchy slogans that get Democrats and Democratic leaning voters stampeding to the polls, I'm all for it.

My reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging.  Is there a science of messaging?  Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not?  Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging?  I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.

[Admiral Yi]

That all being said, I'm extremely proud of the fact that for the first Trump election I managed to convince my Laotian-American bartender (who then convinced her Laotian posse) to register for the first time and vote for Hillary. 

[DGuller]

My reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging.  Is there a science of messaging?  Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not?  Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging?  I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.

I'm probably the worst person ever to ask about messaging.  For me personally, I don't need to be messaged, I follow what's going on sufficiently well on my own.  I know damn well that either voting Republican or not voting is unconscionable, and I'm going to continue knowing that without any messages.  I can't use my own experience to tell you what messaging works, and my record of knowing how other people receive things is not that stellar either.

The problem I see is that whatever the reason, the prevailing attitude of the people living in the country seems to be grossly out of whack with what happens in elections.  Something has got to be wrong there somewhere.  How can it be a foregone conclusion that a party that has so thoroughly discredited itself appears to be a lock to take back the Congress merely two years later?

[The Brain]

What is the Democrats' message to conservative Americans who plan on voting GOP?

[Sheilbh]

The problem is that you're not going to get the outcomes you desire if Democratic messaging is so deficient that they don't even get elected (or they get elected so infrequently that Republicans deal more damage than Democrats can fix).  With better messaging Sinema and Manchin wouldn't be ensuring that the talk about the threat to democracy is the maximum that can be achieved.

Messaging is the least important bit and it's the gilding on the lily - it only works if you have a strategy and you've done the thinking on that bit. Because the messaging comes from the strategy. I think it's the strategy that is absent, not necessarily the messaging. Though I think that is often weird, not well focused and disconnected from any actual discernible strategy or agenda. I think they maybe are doing it as the leading point.

And similarly my issue with the gerontocracy isn't really about messaging - it's about whether the institutions in and around the Democratic party are working as they should, and I'm not sure they are.

[The Minsky Moment]

What is the Democrats' message to conservative Americans who plan on voting GOP?

Subsidized brain surgery.

[Berkut]

My reservation is that there is no objective way to determine what is great messaging and what is "anemic" messaging.  Is there a science of messaging?  Can people who know this science predetermine what will work and what will not?  Do you or anybody else know what exactly the Democrats have to change in their messaging?  I think not, and I think the people who are criticizing the messaging are simply reflecting the age old bias of blaming the big cheese instead of the little guys when the formula can't be solved.

I'm probably the worst person ever to ask about messaging.  For me personally, I don't need to be messaged, I follow what's going on sufficiently well on my own.  I know damn well that either voting Republican or not voting is unconscionable, and I'm going to continue knowing that without any messages.  I can't use my own experience to tell you what messaging works, and my record of knowing how other people receive things is not that stellar either.

The problem I see is that whatever the reason, the prevailing attitude of the people living in the country seems to be grossly out of whack with what happens in elections.  Something has got to be wrong there somewhere.  How can it be a foregone conclusion that a party that has so thoroughly discredited itself appears to be a lock to take back the Congress merely two years later?

Yeah, I am with DG here. I think we probably all are, right?

We are not the target audience. Just by posting in this thread means we all have spent some effort looking at what is going on - it's not a coincidence that despite all of us often disagreeing vehemently on political issue, NONE of us are going to even consider voting for the GOP or Trump. They are just that obviously that bad.

I think we have all expressed at one time or another bafflement at how a bunch of people so obviously terrible have managed to keep clinging to power. You can certainly see the structural reasons why you can remain in power while only appealing to a minority, but even at that - how do they manage to keep that minority voting for them when they are so obviously toxic?

This has been my point for a long time - the Left is exemplary at coming up with sounder, more rational and sane arguments that appeal to other lefties. That really should not come as any surprise though, since the alternative is unhinged from reality. And surely in the court of rational thought, being unhinged from reality is a huge disadvantage.

But why doesn't that translate into results in actual politics more transparently? Because if it did, even remotely, we would not be having this argument. The GOP would be gone, and absent some structural changes we would have two parties that would represent, roughly, 35-40% of America each, and neither of them would look much like the modern GOP. 

So there is something wrong with the messaging, with the politics on the left.