Osita Nwanevu often says the Democratic Party isn't a political party so much as it is a jobs program for its membership. Any governing they do is mostly incidental to the main goal, which is getting and holding these jobs. The age thing just feels like a consequence of that.
It is extremely telling that all the arguments in favor of keeping Biden as the Democratic nominee are focused on the practical difficulties of removing him, or on how it would look. Even Biden’s strongest supporters are unable to make a case that he’s fit to be President.
"After all, a faded elderly man clenching power disastrously to his chest to the great detriment of the public is what our entire system is designed to produce."
As a neurologist,just from tv,I could see months ago that President Biden suffers from Parkinson's Disease(the unsteadiness,the shuffling sluggish gait without the normal swaying of the arms,the monotonous weak voice,the almost expressionless face)He could even suffer from mild dementia,frequently coexisting with Parkinson's.Couldn't anybody in the Party foresee that he would be unable to endure an electoral campaign,not to mention four more years in Office in case of victory?Now perhaps is too late,prepare your selves for the tragedy of four years with Trump in Office.
Calling bullshit on this. An actual neurologist would never be so irresponsible as to offer a diagnosis based on seeing a person they’ve never met on television. Jog on.
“This is the outcome of any system in which wealth and power naturally accumulate over time, and in which—here is the important part—there is no real mechanism for ensuring that old people don’t come to dominate everything.”
Heck, this is what’s going on in my Quaker meeting, of all places, where a man who’s old enough that he joined the Quakers to get out of being sent to fight in KOREA has veto power over everything. (Quaker meetings, for those who don’t know, are not run democratically, but by a sort of consensus reached through spiritual discernment—so one person really *can* kill a proposed action, and this one frequently does.)
(Which is not to denigrate pacifism nor conscientious objection, by any means. I’m just saying he’s that old.)
Absolutely. But to your great wisdom and credit, thank you for also making me laugh. The geriatric plague, indeed. As one of the old people I think that you've hit the target in the middle of its baffled face.
Oh, Jesus Christ, Hamilton — you, too? Yes, Biden is old, but he’s also as vigorous and effective president as we’ve seen in the last 100 years. And while it would, indeed, be a wonderful world if we had a younger, more enlightened government, this is hardly the time to be parsing that shit. Our democracy is on the line, as you’ve said yourself, and whining about the “what if”’s plays right into the hands of the Project 2025 crowd. Please stop being sucked in. The polls are wrong: TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES. He’s not going to win, the Republicans know it, and nitpicking the other team is abetting them in their full-court, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” bullshit.
Not a mistake that wasn’t my point at all thank you so much for explaining what I said. I am objecting to his attack in old people in general and seniority in particular. Weird from a person who writes about workers and doesn’t see that seniority is essential for the labor movement to protect older workers.
If you saw that as an attack on older people, again I think you missed the point. I'm an older person myself, I don't feel personally attacked by this. The point that Hamilton was making is that too much power rests in the hands of that age demographic. And that power needs to be distributed more equally among the population.
I too am picking hints of ageism in the fears about Biden. The article's main point is a good one, but this election is 'way too risky to worry specifically about Biden's age. All we need is non-MAGA people in swing states sitting out the election because they don't like old men, OR because "Biden will win anyway, my favorite poll says so."
Sometimes I think this is what happened to Hillary - people just couldn't vote for her because they thought she was too bossy or abrasive or whatever. And look what happened.
As with the presidency, there should be limits on the number of times you can run for levels of office, say three times for representative and twice for Senate, then move along .
Love it when people get stuck up by some very mild rhetoric, over the substance of the argument. "Old ghouls" is a pretty polite way of putting it, not something to clutch your pearls over.
SCOTUS and decades of Democratic complicity, cowardice and greed has brought us to a point where it matters precious little whether it’s Trump or Biden who wins or whenever.
The administrative state has been mortally wounded.
Democracy is in a zombie state where elections are far too often constrained by gerrymandering and other Republican electoral shit pulling. As implied above, we’ve had a de facto one party state for years.
And here we are writing off our party’s POTUS candidate (who, while allegedly borderline decrepit) actually has a not-completely awful record as POTUS. But sure, let’s concede NOW to a former PORUS who was complicit in the avoidable deaths of 900,000 Americans because acting responsibly would have resulted in his self-esteem being hurt in his psychotic, monstrous eyes.
Hamilton is of course correct in that the debacle didn’t come out of the blue but was unavoidable. But it played out by excessive passivity by too many. Surrendering now—as in replacing our POTUS candidate—is, for one thing, insane and just generally stupid.
It’s also fucking shameful. Republicans would never, ever do any such thing and that’s the attitude that made them dominant on the federal and state levels.
While I agree with you in general, this is not the time to critique this issue. In fact it is utter bullshit that feeds the right wing narrative about this election.
We tried to do this 4 years ago and it wasn't the time then. He had 4 years to pick a successor. You libs really need to stop the chiding of the left over words. Get your boy to move left. Or start knocking on doors to get them votes :)
Having stated that wealth and privilege are not political in one paragraph, you then go on to say that wealth and privilege ARE political in another. The latter paragraph is obviously the correct one.
My question is who but Uncle Joe will get 82 million votes on Nov 6th? My answer is no one. So whatcha gonna do?
No that wasn’t my point at all. It was the tirade against old people in general including the concept of seniority. I don’t understand how someone writing about workers could attack the idea of seniority when it is essential to the labor movement to protect older workers from discrimination.
Seniority is an important factor and seniority protections can be important in order to prevent age discrimination but a system that operates *purely according to seniority* is not one that is likely to put the best people in charge, which is what this piece says.
You’re sort of implying that we don’t have good/the best people in charge because they’re old though? Yes, Dianne Feinstein should have stepped down but she wasn’t even showing up for work. Joe has been everywhere doing his job, maybe walking slowly but Jesus. MTG is young(ish) and spry but she shouldn’t even be in Washington.
We need to suck it up and get through this cycle. There’s not enough time to being in someone new.
Not enough time. There's not enough time. Did we say there's not enough time? I haven't seen any actual Worst Case Scenarios for the next Biden administration. We know he'll appoint good staff and listen to them. Have we seen any evidence of tragically incompetent decisions? I'm seeing someone trying to make the best decisions in an unforgiving world.
As for Trump, the Roman republic only lasted 500 years so I guess managing to keep ours intact for half that amount of time would be something to be proud of.
Meaning that Harris is the nominee. Is that your intent? Because no other candidate can legally access their campaign funds. So you're postulating that the Democrats should re-raise a warchest between now and November. That's your plan? Check again. Are you sure you're a professional political knower?
The amount of money you need to spend on a candidate is inversely proportionate to the quality of that candidate. Joe Crowley outspend AOC 10 to one in 2018 in New York's 14th district. And he ended up with the pink slip. Get people excited about a candidate, and the Internet Takes care of itself. In fact the announcement of a new candidate might actually inject some life into this election and get people excited. And it would be "disruptive "enough that the media would do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of getting it out front and center. Money is largely overrated in terms of gauging political outcomes especially in the age of the Internet. I think it gives people a false sense of security. The notion that whoever raises the most money will be the winner. So it makes winning easy. Simply raise more money than your opponent. Look at all the free press the legacy media had given Trump simply because he is a train wreck. You don't have to be a train wreck to get their attention necessarily, you just have to be dynamic and outspoken...
Osita Nwanevu often says the Democratic Party isn't a political party so much as it is a jobs program for its membership. Any governing they do is mostly incidental to the main goal, which is getting and holding these jobs. The age thing just feels like a consequence of that.
Are the Republicans any different?
It is extremely telling that all the arguments in favor of keeping Biden as the Democratic nominee are focused on the practical difficulties of removing him, or on how it would look. Even Biden’s strongest supporters are unable to make a case that he’s fit to be President.
"After all, a faded elderly man clenching power disastrously to his chest to the great detriment of the public is what our entire system is designed to produce."
Ouch
And sadly quite true
Sigh
As a neurologist,just from tv,I could see months ago that President Biden suffers from Parkinson's Disease(the unsteadiness,the shuffling sluggish gait without the normal swaying of the arms,the monotonous weak voice,the almost expressionless face)He could even suffer from mild dementia,frequently coexisting with Parkinson's.Couldn't anybody in the Party foresee that he would be unable to endure an electoral campaign,not to mention four more years in Office in case of victory?Now perhaps is too late,prepare your selves for the tragedy of four years with Trump in Office.
Calling bullshit on this. An actual neurologist would never be so irresponsible as to offer a diagnosis based on seeing a person they’ve never met on television. Jog on.
Even if, Parkinson's doesn't cause dementia. Your mind's all there as your body becomes less controllable.
“This is the outcome of any system in which wealth and power naturally accumulate over time, and in which—here is the important part—there is no real mechanism for ensuring that old people don’t come to dominate everything.”
Heck, this is what’s going on in my Quaker meeting, of all places, where a man who’s old enough that he joined the Quakers to get out of being sent to fight in KOREA has veto power over everything. (Quaker meetings, for those who don’t know, are not run democratically, but by a sort of consensus reached through spiritual discernment—so one person really *can* kill a proposed action, and this one frequently does.)
(Which is not to denigrate pacifism nor conscientious objection, by any means. I’m just saying he’s that old.)
Neither are fit to be president but here we are, the rest of the world just laughs.
Absolutely. But to your great wisdom and credit, thank you for also making me laugh. The geriatric plague, indeed. As one of the old people I think that you've hit the target in the middle of its baffled face.
Oh, Jesus Christ, Hamilton — you, too? Yes, Biden is old, but he’s also as vigorous and effective president as we’ve seen in the last 100 years. And while it would, indeed, be a wonderful world if we had a younger, more enlightened government, this is hardly the time to be parsing that shit. Our democracy is on the line, as you’ve said yourself, and whining about the “what if”’s plays right into the hands of the Project 2025 crowd. Please stop being sucked in. The polls are wrong: TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES. He’s not going to win, the Republicans know it, and nitpicking the other team is abetting them in their full-court, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” bullshit.
Conflating capitalism and agism is beneath you Hamilton.
Well you just lost me as a supporter. I am 80 and a lifelong progressive. Perhaps you prefer younger people like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. Goodbye.
Your mistake is thinking that this was an indictment against Joe Biden specifically. It wasn't
Not a mistake that wasn’t my point at all thank you so much for explaining what I said. I am objecting to his attack in old people in general and seniority in particular. Weird from a person who writes about workers and doesn’t see that seniority is essential for the labor movement to protect older workers.
If you saw that as an attack on older people, again I think you missed the point. I'm an older person myself, I don't feel personally attacked by this. The point that Hamilton was making is that too much power rests in the hands of that age demographic. And that power needs to be distributed more equally among the population.
His attack on old people? Did you not read this line from the article?
“That does not mean treating older people as less important than others. That means treating everyone as equally important.”
Hardly an attack
Saying Biden is "important" is a leetle bit different from saying he should withdraw from the race.
I too am picking hints of ageism in the fears about Biden. The article's main point is a good one, but this election is 'way too risky to worry specifically about Biden's age. All we need is non-MAGA people in swing states sitting out the election because they don't like old men, OR because "Biden will win anyway, my favorite poll says so."
Sometimes I think this is what happened to Hillary - people just couldn't vote for her because they thought she was too bossy or abrasive or whatever. And look what happened.
All the vitriol detracts from your argument. “Old ghouls”? Really?
Do you disagree that Washington, DC is run by old ghouls?
I'm almost 72 and TOTALLY agree with Hamilton.
As with the presidency, there should be limits on the number of times you can run for levels of office, say three times for representative and twice for Senate, then move along .
As an old ghoul I resent your agitist stereotyping.
You're no ghoul Sue!
Love it when people get stuck up by some very mild rhetoric, over the substance of the argument. "Old ghouls" is a pretty polite way of putting it, not something to clutch your pearls over.
SCOTUS and decades of Democratic complicity, cowardice and greed has brought us to a point where it matters precious little whether it’s Trump or Biden who wins or whenever.
The administrative state has been mortally wounded.
Democracy is in a zombie state where elections are far too often constrained by gerrymandering and other Republican electoral shit pulling. As implied above, we’ve had a de facto one party state for years.
And here we are writing off our party’s POTUS candidate (who, while allegedly borderline decrepit) actually has a not-completely awful record as POTUS. But sure, let’s concede NOW to a former PORUS who was complicit in the avoidable deaths of 900,000 Americans because acting responsibly would have resulted in his self-esteem being hurt in his psychotic, monstrous eyes.
Hamilton is of course correct in that the debacle didn’t come out of the blue but was unavoidable. But it played out by excessive passivity by too many. Surrendering now—as in replacing our POTUS candidate—is, for one thing, insane and just generally stupid.
It’s also fucking shameful. Republicans would never, ever do any such thing and that’s the attitude that made them dominant on the federal and state levels.
Exactly. You don’t see them choosing a new candidate despite theirs being… well…
While I agree with you in general, this is not the time to critique this issue. In fact it is utter bullshit that feeds the right wing narrative about this election.
We tried to do this 4 years ago and it wasn't the time then. He had 4 years to pick a successor. You libs really need to stop the chiding of the left over words. Get your boy to move left. Or start knocking on doors to get them votes :)
Having stated that wealth and privilege are not political in one paragraph, you then go on to say that wealth and privilege ARE political in another. The latter paragraph is obviously the correct one.
My question is who but Uncle Joe will get 82 million votes on Nov 6th? My answer is no one. So whatcha gonna do?
No that wasn’t my point at all. It was the tirade against old people in general including the concept of seniority. I don’t understand how someone writing about workers could attack the idea of seniority when it is essential to the labor movement to protect older workers from discrimination.
Seniority is an important factor and seniority protections can be important in order to prevent age discrimination but a system that operates *purely according to seniority* is not one that is likely to put the best people in charge, which is what this piece says.
You’re sort of implying that we don’t have good/the best people in charge because they’re old though? Yes, Dianne Feinstein should have stepped down but she wasn’t even showing up for work. Joe has been everywhere doing his job, maybe walking slowly but Jesus. MTG is young(ish) and spry but she shouldn’t even be in Washington.
We need to suck it up and get through this cycle. There’s not enough time to being in someone new.
Not enough time. There's not enough time. Did we say there's not enough time? I haven't seen any actual Worst Case Scenarios for the next Biden administration. We know he'll appoint good staff and listen to them. Have we seen any evidence of tragically incompetent decisions? I'm seeing someone trying to make the best decisions in an unforgiving world.
As for Trump, the Roman republic only lasted 500 years so I guess managing to keep ours intact for half that amount of time would be something to be proud of.
"Should he step aside? Unquestionably."
Meaning that Harris is the nominee. Is that your intent? Because no other candidate can legally access their campaign funds. So you're postulating that the Democrats should re-raise a warchest between now and November. That's your plan? Check again. Are you sure you're a professional political knower?
The amount of money you need to spend on a candidate is inversely proportionate to the quality of that candidate. Joe Crowley outspend AOC 10 to one in 2018 in New York's 14th district. And he ended up with the pink slip. Get people excited about a candidate, and the Internet Takes care of itself. In fact the announcement of a new candidate might actually inject some life into this election and get people excited. And it would be "disruptive "enough that the media would do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of getting it out front and center. Money is largely overrated in terms of gauging political outcomes especially in the age of the Internet. I think it gives people a false sense of security. The notion that whoever raises the most money will be the winner. So it makes winning easy. Simply raise more money than your opponent. Look at all the free press the legacy media had given Trump simply because he is a train wreck. You don't have to be a train wreck to get their attention necessarily, you just have to be dynamic and outspoken...
Person on the Internet argues the Internet's centrality"
Most people are not terminally online. However, many people understand the role of money in elections:
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending?cycle=2020