General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInteresting. I was lamenting the lack of future leadership in our party
with all our presidential candidates around 70. OK. O'Malley is 52. I expressed how envious I am of the Republican presidential candidates in their 40s and 50s.
Now, it appears, at least in the House, that the Republicans have no one who knows how a parliament runs, who can be the speaker while we would have plenty of good candidates to succeed Pelosi, if it comes to that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As a result, very few of us went into politics. So there are not many 40-ish Democrats who were elected to high office.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)people and replaced them with amateur and manipulable ideologues.
I hadn't thought of the left lacking younger leaders. I'm sure they're out there. What in the past may have been a spike in the big pattern may be turning into a wave, though. We are living longer and healthier in general, and today's state and national politics is no more an occupation for amateurs than medicine or the law.
Mass
(27,315 posts)This is the problem. I was amazed at the idea that there was no serious candidate to run against McCarthy, who was clearly incompetent for the job. I was not surprised he withdrew, just that it did not come earlier. But clearly, the few people remaining that could get this mess straightened know taking the job is a career-ender.
As for our side, we are losing talents in the House because people in their 50s do not see a chance to climb the ladder and move on. Most of the leadership is in the 70s, and it would be nice if some got out of the way.
FSogol
(45,529 posts)"1st-dibs" claim in the minds of many people, but also because HRC wrapped up much of the fundraisers early. While I think a Democrat will win, the next Presidential election (assuming we don't have an incumbent) will contain much younger candidates.