831–840 of 1001 posts
One of the most effective presidents since Johnson or Truman. But he did campaign on a single term. Let’s hope the Dem’s circular firing squad puts down its guns so they can quickly concentrate on winning the election with someone … probably Harris is the simplest answer.
[flagged]
Which has been good for the USA. It weakens both russia and europe. And if ukraine doesn't lose, makes them forever in debt to USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you must be younger than > the average life expectancy > (currently 73yo) - while in > office. As an aside, it's a common error to think that overall life expectancy is relevant to this sort of thing, it's not. That number includes those who die in infancy, etc. If you wanted to limit it by "life expectancy" you'd want to limit it by the statistical expected remaining years of life at the candidate's current age .…
Still, people age very differently. Some octogenarians are completing triathlons. Medicine also seems likely to increase longevity. Think of the many who through their 80s were cogent, even masterful. Examples include Warren Buffett, John Searle, Hubert Dreyfus, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Clint Eastwood, and with women it’s probably even more common, and we can look to Nancy Pelosi, or indeed my own grandmother.…
Putting politics aside … Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy (currently men: 73yo / female: 79) - while in office. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Politicians who refuse to retire is a huge, bipartisan problem in the US affecting both genders. Putting an age limit on the president or members of congress would probably have to be done via a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that states cannot add eligibility requirements that are not in the constitution. One reform that would help in Congress would be to modify the seniori…
That can't stop an elderly candidate from running third party to spite the eligibility rules, but that's already the case.
It was clear they should not have let Biden try for a second term. How many hundreds of millions of people live in the US, and this is the best we can present as candidate in a two-party system? Instead of arguing why he's "actually not THAT old, he has good days too!" like an alcoholic defending himself by saying he only had light beers yesterday - it's ridiculous. completely missing the forest for the trees. Or the other way around.
Waiting from the debate until now (that the Republican convention is over) to announce Biden's retreat was just a waste of time. Especially without a clear and backed replacement. As a party they should have pulled him out and said, we as a party have a better representative of our ideas and values, here's Johnny! but they didn't because of losing face. To who? To the republicans. They were not voting for your team either way, you dummies!
You are red or blue in 2024. Any voter that can truly be convinced at this stage to change their color and vote, well, how can I put this without being rude. Let's say I would value my toddlers' navigational instructions more than your opinion and vote. You think any 'undecided' voter that might have gone with Biden, will now switch team because they don't like the new candidate, and then go 180 and vote Trump?
It's painful to even think of this hideous game of charades. Money wins in the end anyway. Apologies, this was perhaps more of a rant than a usefull comment adding to the discussion.
Nancy Pelosi and the Obamas have not endorsed Kamala Trading the open primary news on the prediction markets, there’s a lot of liquidity finally!
I'm wondering if the Obamas haven't because Michelle hasn't ruled out running. She has said she wouldn't but that may have been to support Biden and now that there is an opening, she may take it.
Kamala's already got it in the bag, and if the DNC pushes her aside and replace her with a man, they risk losing the women swing-state voters that they desperately need. And if they replace her with a white person, they risk frustrating the black voters in the south that they need just as much.
Name recognition matters a ton in presidential elections, and there's no time to build up a new candidate from scratch: literally the only black woman that's famous enough and politically competent enough to reasonably challenge Kamala is Michelle Obama.
(I don't think she's going to do it though, she hates politics and prefers working in the nonprofit space.)
Putting politics aside … Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy (currently men: 73yo / female: 79) - while in office. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
It's considered to be up to the voters to pick the best candidate.
I meant that if the voters don't want an 82 year old president, they can just not vote for him.
I did not talk about primaries.
Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? Has it ever been done? Would it work to attract the center/swing vote, or more likely to be a negative?
This is so exciting! If I could be a fly on the wall in Trump-ville right now. I wonder what they’re thinking?
Why would not think they were very aware this was a possibility? Because it is a shock to you, you assume it would be a shock to them? Do you really think they read the news to find the news? Or do you think there are layers and levels that you are not privy to?
I think they were banking on Biden staying in and being stubborn. Do you really think Biden would leave his son’s incarceration up to chance? That he voluntarily left the run for POTUS is huge and while they say they’re prepared I think Trumpville is scared.
If the democrats run an open primary and let the merits of the candidates win they’ll emerge with a slam dunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians who refuse to retire is a huge, bipartisan problem in the US affecting both genders. Putting an age limit on the president or members of congress would probably have to be done via a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that states cannot add eligibility requirements that are not in the constitution. One reform that would help in Congress would be to modify the seniori…
Parties should be able to place age restrictions on the candidates. That can't stop an elderly candidate from running third party to spite the eligibility rules, but that's already the case.
In California, we run an Open Primary system for every partisan office outside the POTUS so parties can’t even guarantee they’ll get a candidate into the general election even if they are otherwise eligible to put nominees forward and sometimes it’s Democrat vs Democrat (this has been happening for US Senate elections) or in some legislative districts Republican vs Republican.
Then coming from the opposite direction, you had a complete outsider in Trump effectively takeover the Republican Party in 2016 and he’s still holding the reins in 2024. Bernie Sanders almost managed something similar with the Democratic Party and they just barely held strong enough to keep that from happening. Twice.
Frankly political parties are incredibly unlikely to come together to impose any restrictions that would impose any kind of extra burden on their elder members, let alone age-gate them.