When are the younger members of the Dem Party going to start stepping up to the plate?

[CK_John]

It seems like the whole party is dependent on the senior corps for direction and leadership. Believe me at 74 tripping over a can in the supermarket could mean the difference between a nursery home or living at home.

Even here at DU potential candidates and elected leaders like Harry Reid and Sen Boxer are begged to not retire.

It's time to build a farmteam, quit whining about it and do it.

[Iggo]

1. When they get older.

[Number23]

20. I'm sorry but this made me spew iced tea

Thread Winner. And in the first post. Well done

[brooklynite]

2. Great idea! What are you going to do about it?

Personally, I'm working with DLCC to get more people elected at the State level, which provides a bench for Federal office. But I notice that a lot of people bursting with recommended improvements assume it's someone else's job to implement them.

[CK_John]

5. At 74 I just added an electric wheel to my trike getting ready for spring for now a few

letters to the editor and whining on DU keeps me busy.

[gwheezie]

3. There are several young dems coming up

The old folks need to allow them to move into power. I'm in my late 60's and look forward to the younger dems taking leadership positions. As a party we need to have a large roster of people who can lead us. I love hillary, bernie and Liz but I am concerned that they are the main focus of interest. I hope we see some new faces move into the spotlight. I think Nancy pelosi was terrific but house dems need to move some of the younger members forward.

[misterhighwasted]

4. I agree. Who are the young Dems of the future?

Who do we have that is powerful enough?
This is troubling, and a very thoughtful question to consider.

[tabbycat31]

8. I can only think of two

Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand but neither will make a run at 2016.

There are some born in the 50s that could run in 2016.

[CK_John]

10. Too bad Gillibrand can't be on the ticket with Hillary as VP but she could with Biden.

[randr]

6. All we need is for an additional 5% or higher numbers of

young voters or women to vote. This would tip the scales completely and whatever issues these blocs bring to the table would become the issues politicians campaign on.
It really is that simple.
At least that is the case unless our continuing empathy gives the opposition more time to alter voting laws in their favor.

[tabbycat31]

9. As a young voter

When a politician does not talk about issues that matter to you, it sends a message that you are not important.

Let's take two issues that matter to different generations. Student loan debt and Medicare. Now look at how many times any given politician mentions each one. Everyone is concerned about Medicare, but most are not about student loans. It could be because they were in college in a completely different time, when a summer job waiting tables could pay your tuition. They seem to have blinders on that "I paid my tuition waiting tables over the summer, these kids should too." (Never mind looking at the salary for a server vs tuition).

The millennial generation has the potential to be a sleeping giant in politics but so far it is untapped. We're screwed and most politicians don't even realize it.

[CK_John]

11. It's in the math, the Medicare crowd votes and millennial don't. Nothing personal just the numbers.

[randr]

13. When you show up in numbers that matter

Politicians listen

[CK_John]

15. But....the numbers checked as closely as the DJ is the monthly registration numbers with the

county clerk for number of voters.

Also numbers and events like Occupy where just eye candy for the media because it have no plan, no focus, no end game.

Now you march to the county clerk office and register a 100, 1000, or 10,000 voters and you will get the political attention.

[randr]

18. Absolutely right!

[tabbycat31]

7. I've been complaining about this for awhile

The GOP has a large field of governors and senators born after 1960 that are presidential contenders (whether you like them or not). Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz to name a few.

The Democrats have exactly TWO senators born after 1960 that I can see advancing further (Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker).

All this talk about the 2016 contenders leaves out a big part of it. Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders were all born in the 1940s.

I'm 34 and deeply entrenched in local Democratic politics (and a campaign staffer). This is one of the most important issues to me because someone born in the 40s experienced a completely different world than someone born in the 80s (using the decades my parents were born and I was born). In fact it's very rare that a politician even talks about the issues that matter to the millennial generation (to name a big one, student loans). And then they wonder why we don't vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. In reality, 6 of the 10 youngest Senators are Democrats, including the three youngest....

Among Republicans the three youngest are Cruz, Lee and Rubio which does not really make a good case for 'younger is better because it is younger'.

Among all Governors, only 9 are born in or before 1960, only 4 are under 50. The youngest are Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker. Again, not a great 'youth is better because it is young' argument. Some shitty governors there. Fresh and young looking. But shitty.

[tabbycat31]

19. I'm saying that the GOP has done better training the next generation

I also see the younger Republicans having higher ambitions than the younger Democrats. I hear about the Scott Walkers of this world all the time, but rarely do you hear about Chris Murphy (youngest senator, D-CT). Scott Walker has a national profile whereas Chris Murphy is not known outside of his state (I know very little about him). (Substitute Ted Cruz, not much older than Murphy if you want to use a senator).

(Believe me, I'm no fan of Ted Cruz or Scott Walker, nor the 4 youngest governors).

Whereas Democrats have not. My senator (one of the youngest) is serving his current (partial) term because his predecessor died in office at the age of 89 (he was primaried in 2008 but prevailed). (Full disclosure, I voted for him).

A lot of current (long serving) members of Congress got in there at a very young age. We don't have a Joe Biden (first elected to the senate at 29) anymore. My current Congressman, now 61, was elected at 28. My former congressman (redistricting switched my district), now 63, was elected at 37. I just don't see that in too many members of congress anymore (of course the political climate has changed) and I also see voters failing to take young candidates seriously.

[99Forever]

14. Precisely.

[CK_John]

16. True for the election but there was no follow up. No one asked for anything or

demanded any positions or for a seat in the conference room....

When there is noone to listen to, you assume everything is going perfectly.

[IronLionZion]

21. There are younger people in politics

they don't get to a leadership position until they have been there for a bit to get some seniority.

DUers don't agree on anything. There are many who would love to see Reid and Boxer retire. One issue is the risk of losing Dem seats to repubs in an open election in some states.

A big part of Dean's 50 state strategy was to sow the seeds of dems all across local and downticket races as a training or farm team to pull from for higher office down the road. Some didn't like him spending money on those candidates.



GOP has done a lot of purging and cleaning house to elect more tea party extremists and they tend to block most everything.

[LWolf]

22. Maybe never.

For most of them, at least.

A few surviving older members, who were around before the Reagan Revolution, and then the Clinton Revolution, are still willing to fight for the 99%. Today, though, anyone willing to stand for the 99% isn't going to be elected, and should they defy the odds, they wouldn't last long.

Isn't that what everyone here at DU has been telling me for 13 years now? That any candidate worth electing isn't "electable," so I should STFU, get in line, and vote for the inevitable centrist/"new dem"/3rd way/neoliberal who will make sure that we lose incrementally instead of in bigger chunks?

If they are right, no young Democrat willing to step up to the plate will be elected on a larger scale.