What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Oexmelin]

I sometimes wonder if it's not also linked to the "workplace culture" of the US, where working long hours, all the time, for as long as you can, despite illness, or grief, is made to be a virtue.

[Sheilbh]

Those Protestants, up to no good again.

I wonder if part of it (which is also reflected in the primary challenge point and why the parties don't force them out) is that because American politics is so expensive, especially in the Senate an individual's network of supporters and donors which is something they'll build up over time. You don't want to lose or jeopardise those relationships, but it also makes them very difficult to challenge. I get what you mean Valmy about them being easily replaceable (reading the Feinstein piece I couldn't help but wonder what the point is in having Senators at all), but maybe the bit that isn't is their contacts and relationships with key donors?

The work culture links there too on the donor side - I've no basis for this but it feels like from American pop culture and prominent business people there are a lot in the US who just go on and on. It feels like there's less of an early retirement/retirement at all culture.

[crazy canuck]

Saw that McConnell clip doing the rounds and got to wonder if this generation will be the last to hold on like this. I read the piece a while ago on Feinstein and just thought how undignified it all was - and thinking that again today.

I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.

I am not sure there is acceptance.  More of a structural flaw in the US political system.  It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside.  But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it.  The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.

[Valmy]

Those Protestants, up to no good again.

I wonder if part of it (which is also reflected in the primary challenge point and why the parties don't force them out) is that because American politics is so expensive, especially in the Senate an individual's network of supporters and donors which is something they'll build up over time. You don't want to lose or jeopardise those relationships, but it also makes them very difficult to challenge. I get what you mean Valmy about them being easily replaceable (reading the Feinstein piece I couldn't help but wonder what the point is in having Senators at all), but maybe the bit that isn't is their contacts and relationships with key donors?

The work culture links there too on the donor side - I've no basis for this but it feels like from American pop culture and prominent business people there are a lot in the US who just go on and on. It feels like there's less of an early retirement/retirement at all culture.

The United States has a long tradition of seamlessly passing the torch from veteran politician to hand picked successor. The donors never had a problem with it before.

Why here in Central Texas we have LBJ-Thornberry-Pickle-Lloyd Doggett Congressional seat which, you know, might as well be the same guy holding that seat all these decades.

[Hamilcar]

I am not sure there is acceptance.  More of a structural flaw in the US political system.  It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside.  But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it.  The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.

The fact that the elderly don't step aside in the US seems like a bug rather than a feature to me. But the US has done well, so maybe I'm wrong? I wonder what the steelman version of all positions of great power be occupied by people who are over 80.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.

The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession.  If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.

[Hamilcar]

I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.

The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession.  If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.

Sure. But why?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The obvious answer is the voters don't view age as a disqualifying feature, in spite of persistent tittering about it from the pundit and comedian class. Like if the Democrats or the Republicans wanted younger candidates they had tons of options in the last 8 years, they didn't opt for them in actual primary elections.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure there is acceptance.  More of a structural flaw in the US political system.  It depends on Cincinnatus stepping aside.  But incumbents love the power they have finally achieved and want to hold onto it.  The American system is not great at dislodging an incumbent.

The fact that the elderly don't step aside in the US seems like a bug rather than a feature to me. But the US has done well, so maybe I'm wrong? I wonder what the steelman version of all positions of great power be occupied by people who are over 80.

Since your original question related to those who hold political office in the United States, by what measure have you concluded, the US has done "well"

[Valmy]

I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.

The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession.  If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.

Sure. But why?

Trump.

None of the younger options in the Democratic campaign really grabbed the reigns. So we had Biden vs. Bernie in the end.

But that is totally different and new in the White House. The problem of ancient geriatrics in the Senate and Congress is not new.

[chipwich]

Weak party system. The person is the institution.

[Barrister]

I don't understand why the American public just accepts being ruled by geriatrics. In Switzerland it's seen as inappropriate to stay in office much beyond ~65.

The American public elected Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all in succession.  If geriatrics are ruling it's because of an affirmative choice, not a resigned acceptance. Both parties fielded younger options in the primary and the voters did not choose them.

Sure. But why?

The baby boom.

Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation.  (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).

It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President.  But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation.  It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.

[grumbler]

The baby boom.

Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation.  (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).

It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President.  But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation.  It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.

Correlation /= causation.  There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true:  in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics

I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me:  older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts.  Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.

[Barrister]

The baby boom.

Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation.  (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).

It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President.  But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation.  It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.

Correlation /= causation.  There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true:  in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics

I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me:  older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts.  Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.

Trying to explain election results is obviously a very difficult, in particular if (like I did) you try to explain it with a single answer.  Obviously there are a lot of different factors going on.

But I think I'm more right than I am wrong.

I'm not convinced about election funding.  In particular we're in an era of mass-funding through small donations.  Trump is able to raise millions through small donations.  That was Bernie's superpower - and Obama as well.

Correlation doens't equal causation, but I do think there's something going on that one generation of Americans has been dominating US politics for 30+ years now, and with few signs of it ending anytime soon.

[Hamilcar]

The baby boom.

Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden - all members of the Baby Boom generation.  (Note: Biden, born in 1942, is technically not a boomer, but close enough).

It was noteworthy back in '92 when Clinton won - he was the first boomer President.  But now 30 years later the US is still stuck with leaders of that same generation.  It's just because the demographic bulge of that generation continues to affect elections even now - boomers are happy to elect fellow boomers.

Correlation /= causation.  There's no evidence that boomers preferentially vote for boomers, and some evidence that the reverse is true:  in the deSantis vs Trump polling, Trump does better among the younger voters. Florida politics

I find that the election funding explanation makes the most sense to me:  older candidates have had more time to build donor networks and so can outspend upstarts.  Longer healthy lifespans also plays a part: 80 is the new 70.

Interesting and sad if it's really down to funding networks.