Age becomes talking point surrounding 2020 Democratic field
It's a question some Democrats are pondering as the 2020 presidential election inches closer: Can their party represent change when three of its top candidates are not only familiar faces, but people in their retirement years? Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) will enter her 70s in June. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) is 77. Former Vice Joe Biden will turn 76 later this month.
Though the primaries are still a ways off, all three have emerged in early polls as favorites to be the 2020 Democratic nominee. Some strategists say that might be a problem.
Democrats would be better off with a young candidate, said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon, who argued that an electorate that seems to want change might prefer someone from a younger generation. He put it as a generational battle, this time between baby boomers and millennials.
The desire for change is a function of a battle between an ascending generation, the millennials who want political power, and a descending generation, the baby boomers, who have the power but don't want to give it up, he said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/414698-age-becomes-talking-point-surrounding-2020-democratic-field
ck4829
(34,977 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)Age is an issue and I believe we have to pass on Sanders, Biden and Warren.
We have plenty of younger, attractive candidates like Harris, Castro, Kennedy, Landrieu, Booker, Klobucharwe're good.
And they will play well against the also-70-something trump.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)femmedem
(8,188 posts)I think the OP is probably correct, and we do have some great younger potential nominees. (I love Senator Harris and Senator Klobuchar.)
On the other hand, someone who projects stability, gravitas and wisdom born of experience--like Biden--is about as much change as is possible from what we're suffering under now.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)There has to be other leadership and there is. ORourke, Gillibrand, Harris, Cuomo, Delaney, Booker, Holder are all younger.
genxlib
(5,507 posts)I think Bernie proved that age does not necessarily correlate to appeal.
For me, the bigger question is longevity. I am looking for a candidate that is viable for the next ten years. That's two years of campaigning and eight years of service. If we are hoping for a two term president, then they would not leave office until January 2029.
It isn't a matter of how old they are now but will they be viable at 87? There is no guarantee they will even live that long let alone stay mentally sharp.
I know that is a cold calculus and there are no guarantees. But I favor a candidate that has a better chance of a good solid 10 years ahead of them.
BTW, Bloomberg is 76 further skewing the age factor of people wanting to run for the Democrats.
The interesting thing is that I con't see a lot of 55-65. There seems to be a generational gap.
brush
(53,475 posts)and O'Malley and Brown are in the 55-65 age group so we'll be ok there if it comes to it.
But let's just bask in the embarrassment of wealth we have in younger, attractive candidates like Harris, Castro, Kennedy, Landrieu, Booker and Klobuchar,
They are all about the age Obama was when he first ran and won.
Woohoo! They'll all look good against the 70-something, orange liar the repugs will most likely be stuck with.
genxlib
(5,507 posts)But it is an industry where basic numerical facts drive the decision making.
I am very happy with the choices. My early favorite is Booker for his central-casting resume and the relentless positivity with a streak of toughness. But I would be thrilled with any of the candidates you name.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)As with anything else I try to back the best candidate imo on policy.