And honest public service are a plus.

Al Gore, it was his turn
Kerry
Obama was different, true change
Hillary Clinton, it was her turn
Biden, his turn

Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama. I don't think anyone would have said it was their turn to run. Biden was successful. It was probably past Biden's term. But there were some extraordinary circumstances with Covid that made him the right candidate.

I would say the fact that he was governor of a smaller state probably kept him lower on the lists of possible presidents.

He had given the democratic response to one of Reagan’s state of the unions in the 80s, was chair of the governors association at one point, and give a long speech at the ‘88 democratic convention.

So I think he was well known to the democratic establishment, but obviously not a real household name until he ran in the primaries.

IMHO

Which is odd. After what St. Ronnie did to unions for 8 years, you would have thought blue collar Democrats would have backed him.

Not to worry now though as we've got Govs. Pritzker. Beshear, Moore, Whitmer, Newsom and others who will take a good share of the white, working class vote who for some dunb reason went for TSF in '24.

Candidates they imagine will "shake up" government

For most voters "experience" generally translates to "already corrupt"

Trump has this kind of dark charisma that works. Of course he's a billionaire who neither knows nor cares what's going on with the little people. But he speaks to them and taps into their discontent.

Right now, we have consultants and strategists who want to spend millions of dollars figuring out what men are like. This is hilarious to me. They have to spend money. To figure out. What people are like. If that's not an advertisement for being out of touch, I don't know what is. Even Gov. Walz is out there advertising himself as a code talker. He uses that word! "Well, I put on a camo hat and told them I fix a car." It is fucking amazing to be so open about the fact that you don't understand basic people.

When we have politicians who are actively telling people, "Yeah, we dunno who any of you are," how surprised should we be when they don't vote for us? They're on tv saying this stuff.

It's like, oh my god, how do we not see the problem? It's been blowing my mind for at least the past three or so years.

Our party sounds like college professors and too much academia not nearly enough engaging with everyday people.

...those millions being spent on these "studies" (we agree on the pathetic hilarity) included brainstorming at a luxury resort.
Nothing says "let's figure out how to connect with everyday Joes" like meeting in luxury spots.
That's another layer of the out of touch you rightly point out.

Cat nip for people like me who think our politics have grown too out of touch. And cat nip for the Right because it was so utterly ridiculous and played into every stereotype imaginable.

They're still talking about it.

That article needs to win some kind of award for "How to pin the most precise tail on the donkey"

Hey, who can blame the consultants. An all expense paid trip to yap, yap, yap at a nice resort.

Sign me up! I’m sure I’d charge a lot less!

And, they could hold the brainstorming sessions in a storefront in Arlington, not a resort.
There's no justification for spending premium prices for the location of the meeting.
It reinforces the out of touch accusations.

is chasing shadows...

There's a sizeable chunk of not-every-election voters in the swing states that do translate experience into corrupt. They are enough to swing elections and you should remember that next primary season.

That aside, personally I've always translated experience to have a strong correlation with corruption except I don't exclude 'outsider' politicians from being corrupt either. I mean wtf was Cory Booker's Kushner vote BS if not corruption? It was a personal vote based on personal things, not a vote based on what's best for the country. Cory Booker's been in there too long.

And if you mentioned that here last July, you got hammered in the replies.

When we fail to do this, we risk low voter engagement because voters then feel that their voices were not heard in the process, and that this is not "their" candidate. They feel it is not a fair process. Or at least some will feel that way.

We had a large number of democratic voters stay home in 2024 and just not vote. We can't have that happen. We must have a primary.

No one, except Dean Phillips, did. And I don't believe there is any person out there who would have defeated Biden if they tired.

Anyone could have made the calls and tried to secure 300 delegates to get on the ballot at the convention. VP Harris was the only one who put the work and effort in, no one else did.

I don't buy that people stayed home because there wasn't a primary. I think we all know the true reason they stayed home. And it wasn't economics.

Hand waving everyone who stayed home as racist misogynists does nothing to to help the party win. It also is not an answer, it's deflecting blame onto the voters and essentially finger wagging. Which reinforces the narrative that Democrats have become out of touch with everyday people and are more concerned with identity politics and academia. We dismiss the 2024 loss at not just our peril but the nations.

but here

normal primary process and nominated someone who could defeat tRump. That may or may not have been Kamala. But at least we would have had a robust primary process.

I believe it was Ryan Lizza who made that claim. I don't know who Ryan was talking to anonymously but it was not anyone in the Biden campaign.

researching it right now, but I absolutely had the impression from words he spoke that he saw himself as both a Trump slayer and a one-term bridge to the future. I do think he rethought that during his 4 years.

but he was always clear, and I always understood.

Whenever he was asked about a second term, and he was asked about it a lot, he would tell them that he was not clairvoyant, (my word not his), and he would make that decision at the proper time. He never ruled it out and he never ruled it in. He knew he was older. He knew that life can hand you unexpected circumstances. He did not commit or uncommit.

And Phillips made an effort to get others with better name recognition to run, but they understandably didn’t, because they knew it was a longshot to win. Incumbents usually have a tremendous advantage, but this was an unusual election since both candidates could be seen as incumbents.

The blame is mostly with Biden’s advisors and family who convinced him the race was winnable when it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter to them, I’m sure Donilon and others still made out like bandits.

As for harris getting the nomination, we all know there was little time for a primary. She was the sitting VP and was able to use the existing campaign infrastructure. And when she initially took over, she injected excitement but it all faded due to several missteps and difficulty finding the middle ground between being an independent candidate, and loyalty to the sitting president.

And then we vote. Or we don't vote. It's really quite simple, isn't it?

Party would have been older than she was on January 20th (swearing in) the year following being elected (the old swearing in date was March 4th) or sworn in after the death of a POTUS:

Truman (when sworn in after FDR died in 1945, LBJ was younger than Harris would have been (on Jan 20th, 2021) when he was sworn in after JFK was killed in 1963)

James Buchanan in 1857 (1856 election)

and the first Dem POTUS ever, Andrew Jackson in 1829 (1828 election)

so even 5 years ago, Harris was old by Dem POTUS standards

But considering the ramp up - and that she was selected as a candidate by the very situation 2/3 of Democratic voters told the party was a bad idea - we got where we got.

The age issue is not merely one of numbers. The age issue is reflective that voters want candidates who understand how people are living their lives. The top of our party has lost touch with how people live in this country, how they think, and what's important to them (to say nothing of the technological and economic changes that have occurred in the past 20 years). You cannot run a campaign of "It really is the bestest economy ever" when people are struggling to buy food and afford housing. Harris was pinned down by this, because she couldn't figure out a way to detach herself from a Biden campaign that had these issues in spades. The age and out of touch issue was a big bucket of shit, and Harris got splashed by it through no fault of her own.

There is a sense that the people who have been in power forever simply do not understand the country they live in any longer. It is not only youth, but every demographic across the board skedaddled. (Except white people, which is hilarious given the kinds of excuses perennially given here)

Blame whoever you want. Grouse about young people (is this the second or third time this week?)

But I will blame the politicians and those who control the party apparatus that put us in this political position.

Between the Biden situation/unpopularity, no primary, and a very short campaign, you can't claim much in the way of lessons.

Never allow that situation to ever happen again.

It is concerning, however, how resistant some seem to be to learning it.

I think we're good on 2028 as far as that's concerned. We'll have a primary. Whoever wins is likely to be either Gen X or Millennial.

We'll be able to focus our efforts on nominating someone who actually knows how voters are living. So that will be a nice change of pace.

Wing of the electorate are fine with identity politics - as long as it is centered on them.

I also believe that we can give that part of the electorate everything they want - they'll see one brown person on election day - and turn right around and vote maga Pub.

I've been of age to vote since 1991 - and nothing has changed among the majority of white male voters since then.

They always pull this economy shit.

It's everyone else who significantly shifted over.

I've been thinking of this issue since our last exchange, how to articulate how to see it. I think I've landed on the problem.

The Democratic Party is reliant on coalitional politics. We're always trying to tailor policies, messages, and strategies to this or that group in an attempt to curry favor and nudge turn out in each separate community by a few percentage points. When they do this, they turn to activists, party influencers, and a network of "minority community whisperers" who may or may not actually understand the communities they're ostensibly speaking for. (If your consultant grew up in an affluent suburb and went to the Ivy League where they networked their way into the party, are they really giving good advice on how the bulk of their community sees the world?)

Each election is dinner time. And every time, we have to keep 20 different plates spinning in the air. Which takes a lot of resources and is getting harder and harder to do in a culture that is increasingly homogenized by social media.

My thought is "Stop spinning plates. Just set the damn table." Have a core set of policies that appeal to all of these groups, then hammer them into the ground.

That is not to say to ignore issues like discrimination. Far from. But it cannot be our entire identity, because each spinning plate can now see what you're telling the other plates. We're having major economic problems in this country, and our image as a party is that we are forever fixated on identity issues. It cannot be what we're known for, because how communities interact and how they see themselves has evolved. Latinos, just to use one group, increasingly identify themselves through the economic situation rather than a racial identity. But all our politics are geared to see them mainly through a racial lens. AAPI is starting to go through a similar evolution.

It's gotta be something else. Grow or die. Get your core policies together, and then go out into each community and explain how those core policies are good for them. The end. Stop pitting everyone against each other and compartmentalizing them into discrete and disparate groups.

We need a new coalition based on common interests. The old one is breaking down, if it is not already broken down.

What was it that you wanted to be served and felt you didn't get on your plate? Or was it that you just didn't like the side dishes?

Kamala Harris had a very strong economic platform. It was the con artist who ran on "identity politics".

So I'm the wrong person to ask.

But if you want me to open windows into men's souls, I think we as a party have not recognized that working and middle class people have been struggling the past five years. Groceries, housing, health care, insurance. You name it. Our educational system is collapsing. It's already been in decline, and Covid pushed fast forward on that one. Educational costs are completely out of bounds.

And do you know what voters got an eyeful of right on up til July 2024? "The economy's great, jack!" And then when pressed on how she'd change course, Harris couldn't meaningfully articulate anything she'd do differently.

I'm not discussing policies. I'm a Democrat. I generally like Democratic policies. It's why I'm here.

I'm talking about our politics. The messaging, the issues we elevate and those we ignore, the sense of the voter that a politician cares about you - even a little bit. We've done dreadfully to the point that traditional Democratic demographics have been exhibiting a seismic shift in recent years.

I'm genuinely baffled that people cannot see it. And it's that not seeing it that is entirely the problem.

We need people to love winning more than they love feeling jilted. We're getting to be like Miss Havisham and that cake.

She talked about jobs, wages, healthcare, drug costs, grocery prices, housing, everything. So again, what was missing that you believe men were looking for? There are men in my life. I don't need you to tell me what is in men's souls, they tell me. They knew who was talking about working/middle class issues and who wasn't. BTW, nearly half of the working class is women, it's not just men.

You seem to believe that an issue important to you was ignored and issues you don't care about were elevated. But you won't tell me what those issues are.

As far as the gotcha question that was asked of Harris. Why would she want to change course when their policies had got us out of the Covid recession and the economy was improving? That was a stupid question.

If you feel it was working out well, do that. There are certainly no shortage of people who think how we manage campaigns is a work of art that should framed in a museum somewhere to be admired for eternity.

You say, "Well, she talked about that." Yeah, to whom? We're political junkies. We see everything. Voters aren't. They get the broad strokes. They saw that she was having a hard time separating from Biden, as if recognizing that people were having a rough go of things since 2020 was somehow an implicit indictment of the administration. There was a problem with incumbency. She wasn't going to come in and trash the administration for its tone deaf approach to the campaign - and it was tone deaf.

When it came to the Latino community, every other message was "immigration immigration immigration". Which has been amply covered at this point in other posts.

I didn't hear a peep about the shitshow our educational system is. Parents resented the fuck out of the school closures. And our attitude has been basically, "Meh, whatever. Water under the bridge." And it did so much damage to students and learning. We just had nothing interesting to say on the matter (when we weren't actively defending the extended closures). Unrelated to 2024, but my favorite thing ever was the San Francisco school board refusing to reopen schools, and then they spent their time renaming those named after "problematic" figures in history. I thought AAPI parents were going to burn the city down. It was hilarious.

When it comes to young men, their behavior is a symptom of failed systems. And it is so hard for us to have the discussion. You see this on DU. Try discussing males and the possibility we're doing something wrong there for ten seconds, and it's like someone flashed the sun at a vampire orgy. The economics aren't working for young men, the educational system isn't working, our political culture does not have nice things to say about them, and it has gotten so bad people want to spend tens of millions of dollars on how to write the correct sentences to reach them (because they speak a foreign language apparently).

That's the thing about blind spots. They're difficult to see. That famous Orwell quote paraphrased. To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. And if the response is, "I don't see the problem." Ok then. Keep on driving.

Except that I am not sure that there was a way to do it better.

There were only two options.

1. Try to convince people it was better than it looked

2. Acknowledge it was bad on our watch.

Yes #1 was a loser but #2 could have been even worse. Sure there could be a nuanced discussion that it could have been a whole lot worse and we managed through what by any accounts could have been a major recession. But nuanced conversations in politics are pretty much worthless.

By the way, all of this is doubly true so for young voters. So when people start wondering about the erosion of support in the -25 age, you have to see life through their eyes with bad wages, big debt and high costs. Many in that generation are pessimistic about the future for a lot of reasons.

(Sorry, I'm about to wander off to work for the rest of the day).

Your last point is so crucial. The status quo increasingly doesn't work. I've seen a lot of good arguments that this really began in earnest during the financial collapse of 2008, and the avalanche has just been picking up steam on its way down the mountain ever since.

But our politics have been very status quo. We set ourselves up as the status quo. Quite proudly, I think. Which is an understandable impulse in the face of Trump crazy. We very much want to say, "Look, we're not that."

But the status quo doesn't work. Certainly not for young people. Definitely for Millennials on down, where it's been a shitshow from the word go. Social politics can only go so far. At the end of the day, people have to eat. I take care of four nieces and nephews aged 18-23. I see the costs, their wages, their debt, and their prospects. I didn't see prospects that daunting even 20 years ago.

"Who wants more of what we've been doing for the past 20 years?!" is not a great campaign slogan. We have to somehow thread the needle between status quo and Trump. "We're not crazy, but yeah, we hate all this shit too."

Put that on a bumper sticker.

On threads - check out @smugchristophe or @ArmandDoma.

White: Mamdani +14%

Black: Cuomo +47%

Hispanic: Cuomo + 30

Why can't Mamdani break through to Pragmatic voters?

I haven't seen anything coming from Mamdani that will make me vote for him.

We see in NJ - since we only have local broadcasting from NYC and Philly. That's why our Gubernatorial Candidates ads are all over the channel 7 news.

I listen - I don't judge. But it appears that Cuomo is rising to the top over the bridge and tunnel.

I don't even know who Mamdani is. This is literally the first time I've ever heard that name.

In multiparty parliamentary democracies a formal coalition is created after the election to form a government. So voters can vote for a more narrow faction that more likely appeals to them, rather than a broad party trying to be everything for everybody. The end result may or may not be much better than the two party system, but the electoral process is probably easier for both voters and politicians. Instead of spinning many plates in the air, you set the table with a few of the plates that win.

She campaigned on fixing "price gouging" and building the middle class among other "kitchen table" issues. The closest she came was on abortion which actually does better on the ballot than the Democratic Party.

A lot of Democrats are left-wing on social issues and that is OK--It isn't like the Republicans white racist identity politics. Kamala Harris campaigned mostly on economic issues as well as "the border".

It's about voters voting to choose the better of two candidates for the office. That is what it is always about.

Choosing not to vote because you don't particularly like the candidates is just a flat bad freaking idea, however old you are or they are.

It is not that people vote for the worse candidate. It's that they stay home and don't vote at all. Staying home and not voting is a terrible choice.

And that is the point of my OP. It's not about the age of voters at all.

Roland Martin pointed out the other day - in 2020 in the South Carolina Primary the base put its wish list aside and voted for the guy who they believed could beat the other white guy.

NYC Mayor's Race polling tracks with pragmatism.

NJ Gubernatorial primary election week after next? I believe we are going pragmatic. There are a lot of aspirational things I would like to see happen right now . . . But we need Sherrill and Gottheimer in the House. Military Experience Candidates also don't do well here. That takes out Sherrill AND Fulop.

Which leaves us with two mayors - one who currently manages the largest city in the state. Which one will be better at Defiance to Trump? That's the question. Black voters are looking for some to fill Murphy's legacy of excellence.

And, make no mistake, we have a two-party system in this county in all significant elections.

The folks that didn't vote, voted Green or voted for Trump to teach the Democratic Party "A lesson* are happy with the results.

They got what they wanted.

But when Biden is older than many voters grandparents - that’s really old to the younger generation.

I think we need someone younger who is really smart about social media because all the young are on their phones all day.

We're discussing Democratic political strategy. Isn't it the party's entire job to entice voters into the ballot box?

They failed. Now what?

If the object of the exercise is merely to tsk at people. Ok, then. Tsk noted.

I always talk a few people who weren't planning to vote to go ahead and vote. That's what I can do.

When I was younger, I actively canvassed voters. I really can't do that any longer.

I have no voice that reaches a wider audience.

What do you do?

is a daily thing.

There are a lot of reasons, age being only one factor. JFK was young, good-looking, rich, the whole "Camelot" thing. He beat Nixon, who was older but not old, in a very close election. Subsequent elections were mostly middle-aged white guy vs. middle-aged white guy. Reagan was old-ish but defeated not-old Carter and Mondale; younger Clinton beat George Bush and old-ish Bob Dole. Middle-aged Bush the Younger beat two other middle-aged white guys.

Obama beat McCain, who was older enough that he thought he needed a young running mate, so he chose young but very stupid Sarah Palin. I don't know if she cost him the election but she sure didn't help. The second time, Obama, with the advantage of incumbency, then beat Mitt Romney, the older candidate who had the additional disadvantages of being a clueless plutocrat and a dog abuser.

In 2016 the contest was between a nasty old man and a highly-qualified middle-aged woman. Nasty old man beats competent younger woman, of course. In 2020 it was incumbent nasty old man vs. competent old man, the former vice-president. Competent old man beats nasty old man. In 2024 it's nasty old man vs. highly qualified middle-aged woman, again. Nasty old man beats competent younger woman, again.

Age doesn't seem to have been much of an issue in any election except maybe wrt McCain and the 2020 one, in which both candidates were unusually old for presidential candidates. I do agree that there is something of a gerontocracy in both parties, but the Democrats have been attracting some young talent. However, it seems like most of the attractive, interesting new people are women and/or people of color. In a society that seems to be getting more racist and sexist, will young potential candidates who are not white men have a chance?

That 60 is considered young and spry in our party isn't the argument OP thinks it is.

At the end of the day, age is politically survivable. It wasn't the number itself that sank Biden. It's that he looked and sounded like it in public. Say what one will, but Bernie Sanders and Trump are both out there energetically during media appearances and rallies. Trump's a lunatic, but he's out there bouncing around. No one might've noticed Feinstein quite so much, but then when they would wheel her on out to the floor for a vote, that was quite an image to put in voters' minds. We have this reputation we have now because of things like that. And Republicans aren't immune either. There has been plenty of commentary about Grassley and McConnell. But Trump was not tied to them the same way our candidates get tied to our leadership.

As you note, image matters in elections, and age has an effect on that. If you look and sound like you are barely hanging on, voter confidence is not going to be where it should. Certainly not for a national campaign.

2024 was just irresponsible and total political malpractice.

They refuse to see the racism that is so very obvious. They will blame age, sex, pandering to disenfranchised people, anything but what has driven white voters since they were allowed to vote.
Somehow if we just talk about economics, the new deal, a chicken in every pot and a return to a time when one person’s earnings could take care of a family of 10 everyone would vote for democrats. But the republicans feed and live identity politics and they win. I think our problems go a lot deeper. Our entire system is about to collapse and it all points back to people who would let the world burn to be sure people who don’t look like them, don’t worship like them and don’t speak English get hurt.

Of white male and adjacent culture of "I don't care what happens to myself or anyone else as long as I'm first".

I've given up on "A rising tide lifts all boats" nonsense.

Reagan was the runner-up in 1976; Bush was the sitting Vice President; Dole had been the runner-up in 1988; Bush Jr. was the son of the last Republican president; McCain was the runner-up in 2000; Romney was the runner-up in 2008. In 2016, it was supposed to be Jeb's turn until Trump shook everything up. On our side, with the exception of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and previous/sitting Vice Presidents (Mondale, Gore, Biden), we never really did that - and two of those cases have caveats: we were writing off 1984 and Mondale very nearly got beat by Hart; Biden more or less was the frontrunner in 2020 by default - I think almost everyone would have preferred someone younger but due to years of poor bench development and long stretches of minority status in congress, people frankly were hard pressed to name a younger white male with a moderate image who seemed to be nationally viable.

That last point is the clincher: we really need to develop and elect nationally viable moderate white males - we no longer have the option of tapping the just prior to/very early baby boom generation of party stalwarts.

We had so many democratic voters in 2024 who simply stayed home and chose not to vote.

Many young voters I think feel a little hopeless when it comes to the choices they are presented with. They feel like no one is listening. They don't want to vote republican because that's obviously awful. But they don't really feel like democrats are listening or that voting that way will result in the change they want to see either. Gaza. The fact that they can't afford to move out of their parents' basements. They want to buy houses and have good jobs and be able to afford to have kids if that's what they want. None of that is a reality for them.

And it's easy to get screechy and say IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE REPUBLICANS, which yes, it is. But when voting democrat means none of what I just listed above is going to get fixed in the 4 years a democrat is in office... you can see why they are starting to lose hope. So we have to find a way to fix stuff. In my opinion, until we are willing to absolutely fight DIRTY, we are not going to start winning. Why do republicans obstruct and shut things down every chance they get when we are in power, but now that they are in power, we are sitting there doing nothing? Why are we not obstructing and delaying and doing everything we can to stop them?

I do not blame young people for feeling like democrats are directionless. If we keep this up, and follow it with, you must vote for whatever "safe white straight christian male" the DNC anoints in 2028, expect more of them to stay home then too.

Emotions and a Cultural In Crowd does. Play to peoples' fears and perceived threats and losses - and you win.

If we have a desire to win, we must embrace a populist message that is relvant to and appeals to the vast majority of the country -without considerati on of age. Until they'd decide to do that, we should get used to losing.

As for those not winning you could include at least Gore and Dukakis. I’m sure there are others.

As for complaining about older candidates that seems to be recent. I like to see our democratic politicians have experience and know how to get legislation passed. Not someone hollering the loudest like MTG and Jacketoff Jordan.

will be 80 in July, 60 sounds pretty young. It's all relative.

Especially on the Democratic side. It is bad that JD Vance was the first millennial to make it to the White House.

in our rush to trash Democrats.