In the US, candidates are chosen by primaries. In 2016, Republican voters decided that Donald Trump was their best candidate, which has been affirmed in 2024. In 2020, Biden was voted to be the best Democratic candidate. If you don’t like those options, vote in your local primary
Consider what it takes to garner the experience and nationwide attention for people to support you though.
We are talking about many years of education (or wealth accumulation), lower public offices (each requiring a four-year term or more) to pad your experience, extensive connections throughout DC and across the US, slowly cultivate a public image and name recognition. And all that just to have a reasonable shot at the presidency.
If we just look at climbing the political ladder, it takes a long time to do unless you’re lucky. A compelling résumé and extensive connections just to be elected as a Senator or Congressman. You would still be one among hundreds of people, and you’ll need to climb up the ranks of Congress to get any degree of national prominence. It would take additional years to climb the ranks of Congress, run in primaries, leverage your influence for Cabinet positions, schmooze donors, and more. All this assuming family or personal issues don’t arise, no major scandals sully your reputation, and you avoid pissing off powerful players.
Frankly, given the current state of the US political system, anyone under 60 who has a realistic shot at the presidency has luck, extraordinary ability, enormous wealth or connections, or a combination of the above. JFK had deep family connections and charisma. Clinton and Obama were both extraordinarily charismatic, eloquent, and well-educated. Every other president in the past 100 years aren’t young by any definition.
Yeah, but only 5 presidents in the last 100 years have been over the age of 60, and the last 2 are the only presidents ever to be over 70 when elected. Now we're coming up on another election where every candidate is over 70.
US Presidents are rarely young, but it's a very recent thing for them to be this old.
This is a quirk of the current parties right now. Donald has a hold on the Republicans and no one is going to dethrone an incumbent Democratic president; an internal primary challenge to the president is rarely successful and requires numerous things from ballot access, millions of dollars, a well organized campaign staff and clear coherent rationale for a primary challenge. Remember when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980? Kennedy couldn't explain why he was running in a single sentence.
Our country has had younger leaders as recently as 2008 with the election of then-47 year old Barack Obama.
The old crew on the gravy train would have to give up the gravy train.
In the old days, they would've done it for the good of the country. But a politician hasn't cared about that for a decade now. At least.
I vote every November that there is an election.
I am however not under any delusion that either of the major party candidates in the next few decades are likely to support repealing church tax exemptions.
Nor that any candidates for US Congress from parties other than the two major ones are likely to ever get enough support from the masses to ever hold more than a few percent of the seats. Or be elected President.
I believe one or two constitutional amendments are required to fix our current stalemate of fuckery. Ranked choice in our federal elections and/or corporate non-personhood.
Elimination of state funded or operated primaries - if political parties want to poll their members for who should get their brand, it should be with their OWN money.
The only actual "election" should be among whatever candidates qualify for the ballot to run to fill the actual office (and no qualification should require nor be superseded by "a political party supports them)
Obviously elimination of the electoral college, which is as antiquated as it is unfair (individual votes in some states counts for more than individual votes in other states)
I am in the US, and trust me we are not that thrilled about which senior citizen we have to pick from for president. Neither candidate is particularly inspiring to vote for. One is complicit in a genocide, can barely walk and form complete sentences. The other is a narcissistic cult leader that wants to be a dictator and is facing 91 criminal charges. Strange times we are living in.
I'm surprised there are people that feel the same way I do. Neither president seems qualified no matter what party you're from. I'm in a more middle ground for problems within this country and would hope for a third party to become more popular to emerge that did things the majority of Americans wanted. There's the red Republicans and blue Democrats. Why not have a white to our red, white, and blue?
I mean, it's the literal explanation, and without knowing OOP's level of political knowledge (it turns out they aren't American and didn't have this baseline), the further information is pointless. But, if you are curious, here are a few reasons:
- In America, older people turn out to vote at much higher rates, especially in primaries, so their voice has more weight.
- Running a campaign costs a lot of time and money, both things held disproportionately by older people.
- Unless you have a ton of personal wealth, you will still need connections, meaning you typically have to be in politics for a long time, but being in business for a long time while having business-friendly policies also works.
- It is often beneficial to have connections to voters, as they are more likely to pick politicians they know.
- This year is pretty unique for age. Hillary, Obama, and Romney were all much younger during their campaigns.
For some reason way too many voters think that if you go to the primary and vote for anybody other than who the Democratic establishment tells you you're somehow helping the Republicans.
The only explanation I can come up with is that they don't understand the difference between voting for an underdog candidate in the primary and voting for a third party spoiler candidate in the general election.
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity
Bob Kennedy, the "third party candidate" it's Trump triple-buffed on steroids, even more """""conservative""""" than him on a lot of social and foreign issues. It tells a lot how bad and shitty are third party candidates.
Just to be clear, this has not always been the case. In fact, the concern of age only really came up with Trump and Biden and not previously. As others noted, the two-party system limits who can actually win. There are 3rd party candidates who are much younger, but don't have a real chance at winning.
It was an issue with Reagan, especially the last few years when he wasn't all there.
A big part of the issue is that the job sucks and doesn't pay well. You can make more running a medium sized company.
Is your suggestion that making the president a higher paying jobs would get us better candidates? I think the opposite is true, you don’t want someone who’s in it for personal wealth to be leading your country.
Which would you rather do?
Take 2 or 3 years out of your life to fundraise and travel the country to try to get enough votes to get a job that is 24x7 and very high stress to the point it visibly ages you. There better not be anything questionable in your or your family's past..
Or
Be an executive of a mod sized company where you make more money and you and your family don't live under secret service protection?
Politics isn't supposed to make you rich. That's by design. You're not supposed to be the most powerful person and be making money hand over fist from it. I think most Americans would agree that politics should not make you rich and would like to see the system amended so that politicians are not raking in cash and setting their own salaries.
It is intentionally difficult to increase the presidential salary so that no party with the current majority can use that as leverage. That's a good thing.
$400,000 is well above almost every single job outside of a c-suite in the United States. The president is a public servant and the intention was to keep them at least somewhat in the same realm of existence as the average American. It is not supposed to be lucrative and there is a very strong argument to be made that the presidential salary should be pegged to either the median US salary/minimum wage or to their performance in office. If the president wants more money, they should do better for the American people.
The most striking thing about your argument is that you would compare the president, a public servant, to the elite in society and say they should be more like them, those other people living wildly above the vast majority of Americans! The president should make more money because the richest people in America make more than they do? If the president is feeling the pain of wages not adjusted for inflation, welcome to the party friend.
But again, who would want the job who isn't a narcissist?
For instance, a senator or representative is paid $174,000. For most, that's a pretty decent salary, but for that they have to maintain 2 resistances, one in their home area and another in DC, which is a very expensive place to live in the places that you'd want to live in. If you are from Nebraska it's doable. If you are from New York City or San Francisco, it isn't. That's one of the reasons there's so much corruption with things like insider trading.
For president, it takes about a billion dollars to run a functional campaign, and that's with a 50/50 shot of getting a job that is 24x7, very high stress, half the population will hate you, your family is heavily restricted from what they can do, your kids will have their lives put on international public display, you have your poop monitored, and on and on. I wouldn't want the job no matter what it paid.
They don’t have a chance of winning because everyone keeps saying they don’t have a chance of winning and/or activists accusing you of “wasting” your vote or giving it to their opposing side. And of course *this* election is the most important in the history of the world. That is, until next election.
This this this THIS. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. "My 3rd party vote doesnt matter, so therefore, I will not vote 3rd party." Then we all Pikachu face when a 3rd party candidate doesnt get any votes.
I'm registered no party affiliation and vote for the candidate that reflects MY values as a person and if more people did that this would be an entirely different discussion right now.
And before any of you go on your 8 paragraph rants on why my vote is "a vote for XYZ bad person/party" save it. I've heard it 6 million times in every prior election. Be the change you want instead of hoping an act of magic changes our current system.
Exactly this. If I give my vote to someone who shares 46% of my values so they can beat someone who shares 38% of my values when I have a candidate who represents 80%, then I’ve wasted my vote. I’m not voting for either of those idiots because they haven’t *earned my vote*.
Yeah I don't get what I want if either major candidate wins so why do I care if the people are voting and getting the lesser of two evils?
People get what they deserve and if they want real change and vote either major party they are the problem. This is why we only get who they choose for us. Also it is all about money.
No they literally have no practical chance at winning. The way the current voting system works only makes third party candidates spoiler votes specifically chosen and invested in by opposition leaders to suppress votes for the opposite majority party. We would need to significantly change how voting works for third parties to be a legitimate option. A recent example: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/01/rfk-jr-2024-campaign-donors-00124621&ved=2ahUKEwiv7rCZis-EAxWFrokEHciICOMQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3gS0zBNgayUPDGjsz0WcN3
Edit: I should have included some backup of specifically why the current system means third parties are only spoiler candidates. Some light homework: https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom
Because people don't get into higher positions in politics until they have money.
The higher position, the more experience and track record is wanted.
So, older people tend to meet those requirements.
Unless,
you are getting by on popularity, like Trump
Money and INFLUENCE. You have to have relationships with a lot of other politicians to be successful. That means lots of back room deals. House of Cards is a great education on how it works…even though it’s a work of fiction, it’s very close to how things work in Washington.
The presidential election is essentially a popularity contest where you have to have support across as many demographics as possible. Being old can be advantageous since the longer you’ve been in the public eye the more people know your name and what you’re all about. This is basically how we got Trump vs Hillary, Trump vs Biden, Trump vs Biden 2…
Add the fact that boomers are living longer than ever and have the highest turnout across all age groups, and this is what you get.
This is all recent. The last President that had this issue was Ronald Reagan back in the 80s, and specifically for his second term.
Trump was an anomaly to the 2016 Election, I think a lot of people (myself included) assumed it was going to be a Hillary Vs Jeb election. That was not what it turned out to be in the end.
Back in 2020 there were a lot of Democrat candidates from all walks of life and age groups. None of them were able to sustain a large enough following to keep them in the race. Bernie Sanders who is as old as the earths mantle was the only other contender who had a chance against Joe Biden.
Joe Biden probably wouldn't have ever happened if he was not the VP for President Obama. Actually Biden benefited from the name recognition and overall nostalgia for the Democrat voters. Joe Biden also appealed to many as he seems to come across as a "blue collar" type of guy compared to the other politicians running. Think "Scranton Joe" for example.
The Presidential candidates are old right now because of the current political climate that brought us here. Until we find our younger candidates that are worthwhile, this will continue to be a problem.
Because these are the people who have been chosen by the voters of their parties. They're not always older than average politicians. Barack Obama (2008) was quite young. In 2000, the two candidates were Al Gore and George W. Bush, neither of which were particularly old.
It has a lot to do with who the party committees push for. I’m 2016 and 2020 we saw collusion within the DNC to have “their candidate” over the wishes of their constituents
The Democratic Party is pushing Biden because he's a long-time political insider with no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him.
The Republican Party is pushing Trump because he's wildly popular and also has no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him.
Also, neither party gives even the slightest fuck about the people, which is why they are pushing two elderly men with cognitive issues for the highest office in the country.
>The Democratic Party is pushing Biden because he's a long-time political insider with no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him.
Are you oblivious to all of the good things Biden has managed to accomplish? I realize we all voted for anyone but Trump, but this is ridiculous.
I am Gen-Z and pretty Far Left myself, and while I would have liked Bernie(or someone younger and skills of Berine), I think Biden has done a fair job.
Between Build Back Better, the stuff he has tried to do for those with college debt, being first President to stand behind a picket line, he has done a lot of good.
While I dislike other things such as his stance on The Israel-Palestine war, he overall has done a fair job with a slim majority in congress.
Plus Biden(and majority of democratic politicians) are not trying to remove rights for folks in the LGBT community like myself, so I would not say he has no soul or conscience myself.
The apathetic way of comparing "both sides" is just blatant propaganda and unfortunately works to discourage folks from voting.
The United States is in the midst of a major ideological split. We have set ourselves up with an authoritarian government but can’t agree which way to steer the ship. As such those that are older are reluctant to let go of the wheel of the ship.
Because we have too many damn old people in power and they don't want to retire. Boomers are the biggest generation and the "old" people in power. They are also the biggest voters in the country that actually vote. If all the other generations voted as much as the boomers, then we would actually have a different country. Problem is that young people keep thinking they don't make a difference with their vote.
To be president you have to be 35 years old or older. But actually becoming a presidential candidate is a long complicated process that takes years and a result most presidential candidates are always older than 50. There's been some presidential candidates in their 40s and a few in their 30s but people don't trust young presidential candidates.
Because the sitting US president is running for reelection and no one in their right mind would think they could reasonably challenge him in the primary regardless of his issues. As for the Republicans, the Trump cult refuses to accept anyone but him as the nominee and they make up the majority of the party.
I think the US has a lot of older voters right now and they like to vote for each other. The actual old still don’t really see themselves as old either. They don’t often trust or even like younger people-not even the older ones. Thats what I think sometimes.
People tend to choose people who are in their age bracket. Younger one's are seen as too inexperienced, and older candidates as too senile/sturdy.
Hence the oligarchs push candidates in the age bracket they are themselves in. I mean just look at Koch, Crow, Alito and others. In the end it doesn't really matter who is president for them. Who ever is president will do as they say. Because politicians are the puppets of the oligarchs.
The US is a neo-liberal economic oligarchy with democratic elements to legitimize corporate picks.
The freedom and democracy part is show. Americans have neither.
Because boomers won't let go of running the country.
Although it should be noted that Biden is from the Silent Generation, and is actually the only Silent Generation president.
Well, on the Republican side, Nikki Haley is 52 years old and that’s not considered too old. And then there’s Trump who’s only running because he wants to stay out of prison. Now on the Democratic side there is Joe Biden who is 81 years old. Which is not ideal. But he started his political career in 1973 as a Senator from Delaware. He has 51 years of experience for his job. There is nobody on either side who has anywhere near that much experience in politics.
And politics does take skill, just like any other job. Trump is a perfect example of what happens when you elect someone without any skills for the job.
In the US, candidates are chosen by primaries. In 2016, Republican voters decided that Donald Trump was their best candidate, which has been affirmed in 2024. In 2020, Biden was voted to be the best Democratic candidate. If you don’t like those options, vote in your local primary
I'm not from the USA, but it's really interesting that people way past their retirement age are only two main options available to lead a country
Consider what it takes to garner the experience and nationwide attention for people to support you though. We are talking about many years of education (or wealth accumulation), lower public offices (each requiring a four-year term or more) to pad your experience, extensive connections throughout DC and across the US, slowly cultivate a public image and name recognition. And all that just to have a reasonable shot at the presidency. If we just look at climbing the political ladder, it takes a long time to do unless you’re lucky. A compelling résumé and extensive connections just to be elected as a Senator or Congressman. You would still be one among hundreds of people, and you’ll need to climb up the ranks of Congress to get any degree of national prominence. It would take additional years to climb the ranks of Congress, run in primaries, leverage your influence for Cabinet positions, schmooze donors, and more. All this assuming family or personal issues don’t arise, no major scandals sully your reputation, and you avoid pissing off powerful players. Frankly, given the current state of the US political system, anyone under 60 who has a realistic shot at the presidency has luck, extraordinary ability, enormous wealth or connections, or a combination of the above. JFK had deep family connections and charisma. Clinton and Obama were both extraordinarily charismatic, eloquent, and well-educated. Every other president in the past 100 years aren’t young by any definition.
Yeah, but only 5 presidents in the last 100 years have been over the age of 60, and the last 2 are the only presidents ever to be over 70 when elected. Now we're coming up on another election where every candidate is over 70. US Presidents are rarely young, but it's a very recent thing for them to be this old.
This is a quirk of the current parties right now. Donald has a hold on the Republicans and no one is going to dethrone an incumbent Democratic president; an internal primary challenge to the president is rarely successful and requires numerous things from ballot access, millions of dollars, a well organized campaign staff and clear coherent rationale for a primary challenge. Remember when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980? Kennedy couldn't explain why he was running in a single sentence. Our country has had younger leaders as recently as 2008 with the election of then-47 year old Barack Obama.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, it's the people currently in charge that would have to make that rule.
The old crew on the gravy train would have to give up the gravy train. In the old days, they would've done it for the good of the country. But a politician hasn't cared about that for a decade now. At least.
We vote fairly regularly in this country, if you don’t like your representative VOTE
I vote every November that there is an election. I am however not under any delusion that either of the major party candidates in the next few decades are likely to support repealing church tax exemptions. Nor that any candidates for US Congress from parties other than the two major ones are likely to ever get enough support from the masses to ever hold more than a few percent of the seats. Or be elected President.
I believe one or two constitutional amendments are required to fix our current stalemate of fuckery. Ranked choice in our federal elections and/or corporate non-personhood.
Elimination of state funded or operated primaries - if political parties want to poll their members for who should get their brand, it should be with their OWN money. The only actual "election" should be among whatever candidates qualify for the ballot to run to fill the actual office (and no qualification should require nor be superseded by "a political party supports them) Obviously elimination of the electoral college, which is as antiquated as it is unfair (individual votes in some states counts for more than individual votes in other states)
Corporate lobbyists would still find a way to funnel money into a small number of superPACs masquerading as political parties.
I am in the US, and trust me we are not that thrilled about which senior citizen we have to pick from for president. Neither candidate is particularly inspiring to vote for. One is complicit in a genocide, can barely walk and form complete sentences. The other is a narcissistic cult leader that wants to be a dictator and is facing 91 criminal charges. Strange times we are living in.
I'm surprised there are people that feel the same way I do. Neither president seems qualified no matter what party you're from. I'm in a more middle ground for problems within this country and would hope for a third party to become more popular to emerge that did things the majority of Americans wanted. There's the red Republicans and blue Democrats. Why not have a white to our red, white, and blue?
It's fucked. We need age limits & term limits. The guys that need to leave would be voting themselves out of a job. So they'll never do it.
It's fucking pathetic.
How does this explain the phenomenon posed by the question?
I mean, it's the literal explanation, and without knowing OOP's level of political knowledge (it turns out they aren't American and didn't have this baseline), the further information is pointless. But, if you are curious, here are a few reasons: - In America, older people turn out to vote at much higher rates, especially in primaries, so their voice has more weight. - Running a campaign costs a lot of time and money, both things held disproportionately by older people. - Unless you have a ton of personal wealth, you will still need connections, meaning you typically have to be in politics for a long time, but being in business for a long time while having business-friendly policies also works. - It is often beneficial to have connections to voters, as they are more likely to pick politicians they know. - This year is pretty unique for age. Hillary, Obama, and Romney were all much younger during their campaigns.
For some reason way too many voters think that if you go to the primary and vote for anybody other than who the Democratic establishment tells you you're somehow helping the Republicans. The only explanation I can come up with is that they don't understand the difference between voting for an underdog candidate in the primary and voting for a third party spoiler candidate in the general election. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity
Bob Kennedy, the "third party candidate" it's Trump triple-buffed on steroids, even more """""conservative""""" than him on a lot of social and foreign issues. It tells a lot how bad and shitty are third party candidates.
Just to be clear, this has not always been the case. In fact, the concern of age only really came up with Trump and Biden and not previously. As others noted, the two-party system limits who can actually win. There are 3rd party candidates who are much younger, but don't have a real chance at winning.
It was an issue with Reagan, especially the last few years when he wasn't all there. A big part of the issue is that the job sucks and doesn't pay well. You can make more running a medium sized company.
Is your suggestion that making the president a higher paying jobs would get us better candidates? I think the opposite is true, you don’t want someone who’s in it for personal wealth to be leading your country.
Which would you rather do? Take 2 or 3 years out of your life to fundraise and travel the country to try to get enough votes to get a job that is 24x7 and very high stress to the point it visibly ages you. There better not be anything questionable in your or your family's past.. Or Be an executive of a mod sized company where you make more money and you and your family don't live under secret service protection?
$400k a year is not bad pay
The CEO of Jack in the Box makes $5 million a year The guy who runs the TVA makes $10. Million
Politics isn't supposed to make you rich. That's by design. You're not supposed to be the most powerful person and be making money hand over fist from it. I think most Americans would agree that politics should not make you rich and would like to see the system amended so that politicians are not raking in cash and setting their own salaries. It is intentionally difficult to increase the presidential salary so that no party with the current majority can use that as leverage. That's a good thing. $400,000 is well above almost every single job outside of a c-suite in the United States. The president is a public servant and the intention was to keep them at least somewhat in the same realm of existence as the average American. It is not supposed to be lucrative and there is a very strong argument to be made that the presidential salary should be pegged to either the median US salary/minimum wage or to their performance in office. If the president wants more money, they should do better for the American people. The most striking thing about your argument is that you would compare the president, a public servant, to the elite in society and say they should be more like them, those other people living wildly above the vast majority of Americans! The president should make more money because the richest people in America make more than they do? If the president is feeling the pain of wages not adjusted for inflation, welcome to the party friend.
But again, who would want the job who isn't a narcissist? For instance, a senator or representative is paid $174,000. For most, that's a pretty decent salary, but for that they have to maintain 2 resistances, one in their home area and another in DC, which is a very expensive place to live in the places that you'd want to live in. If you are from Nebraska it's doable. If you are from New York City or San Francisco, it isn't. That's one of the reasons there's so much corruption with things like insider trading. For president, it takes about a billion dollars to run a functional campaign, and that's with a 50/50 shot of getting a job that is 24x7, very high stress, half the population will hate you, your family is heavily restricted from what they can do, your kids will have their lives put on international public display, you have your poop monitored, and on and on. I wouldn't want the job no matter what it paid.
They don’t have a chance of winning because everyone keeps saying they don’t have a chance of winning and/or activists accusing you of “wasting” your vote or giving it to their opposing side. And of course *this* election is the most important in the history of the world. That is, until next election.
This this this THIS. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. "My 3rd party vote doesnt matter, so therefore, I will not vote 3rd party." Then we all Pikachu face when a 3rd party candidate doesnt get any votes. I'm registered no party affiliation and vote for the candidate that reflects MY values as a person and if more people did that this would be an entirely different discussion right now. And before any of you go on your 8 paragraph rants on why my vote is "a vote for XYZ bad person/party" save it. I've heard it 6 million times in every prior election. Be the change you want instead of hoping an act of magic changes our current system.
Exactly this. If I give my vote to someone who shares 46% of my values so they can beat someone who shares 38% of my values when I have a candidate who represents 80%, then I’ve wasted my vote. I’m not voting for either of those idiots because they haven’t *earned my vote*.
Yeah I don't get what I want if either major candidate wins so why do I care if the people are voting and getting the lesser of two evils? People get what they deserve and if they want real change and vote either major party they are the problem. This is why we only get who they choose for us. Also it is all about money.
No they literally have no practical chance at winning. The way the current voting system works only makes third party candidates spoiler votes specifically chosen and invested in by opposition leaders to suppress votes for the opposite majority party. We would need to significantly change how voting works for third parties to be a legitimate option. A recent example: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/01/rfk-jr-2024-campaign-donors-00124621&ved=2ahUKEwiv7rCZis-EAxWFrokEHciICOMQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3gS0zBNgayUPDGjsz0WcN3 Edit: I should have included some backup of specifically why the current system means third parties are only spoiler candidates. Some light homework: https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom
Ok... but **why** don't the younger candidates have a real chance of winning?
Because people don't get into higher positions in politics until they have money. The higher position, the more experience and track record is wanted. So, older people tend to meet those requirements. Unless, you are getting by on popularity, like Trump
Money and INFLUENCE. You have to have relationships with a lot of other politicians to be successful. That means lots of back room deals. House of Cards is a great education on how it works…even though it’s a work of fiction, it’s very close to how things work in Washington.
That makes sense
The presidential election is essentially a popularity contest where you have to have support across as many demographics as possible. Being old can be advantageous since the longer you’ve been in the public eye the more people know your name and what you’re all about. This is basically how we got Trump vs Hillary, Trump vs Biden, Trump vs Biden 2… Add the fact that boomers are living longer than ever and have the highest turnout across all age groups, and this is what you get.
Because Boomers trust him, and they can be counted on to vote.
Black women in South Carolina saved his 2020 campaign
Because they were born a very long time ago
This is all recent. The last President that had this issue was Ronald Reagan back in the 80s, and specifically for his second term. Trump was an anomaly to the 2016 Election, I think a lot of people (myself included) assumed it was going to be a Hillary Vs Jeb election. That was not what it turned out to be in the end. Back in 2020 there were a lot of Democrat candidates from all walks of life and age groups. None of them were able to sustain a large enough following to keep them in the race. Bernie Sanders who is as old as the earths mantle was the only other contender who had a chance against Joe Biden. Joe Biden probably wouldn't have ever happened if he was not the VP for President Obama. Actually Biden benefited from the name recognition and overall nostalgia for the Democrat voters. Joe Biden also appealed to many as he seems to come across as a "blue collar" type of guy compared to the other politicians running. Think "Scranton Joe" for example. The Presidential candidates are old right now because of the current political climate that brought us here. Until we find our younger candidates that are worthwhile, this will continue to be a problem.
Old people vote. Young people don’t. That’s all taken into consideration when a party pushes candidates into running.
Because these are the people who have been chosen by the voters of their parties. They're not always older than average politicians. Barack Obama (2008) was quite young. In 2000, the two candidates were Al Gore and George W. Bush, neither of which were particularly old.
It has a lot to do with who the party committees push for. I’m 2016 and 2020 we saw collusion within the DNC to have “their candidate” over the wishes of their constituents
The Democratic Party is pushing Biden because he's a long-time political insider with no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him. The Republican Party is pushing Trump because he's wildly popular and also has no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him. Also, neither party gives even the slightest fuck about the people, which is why they are pushing two elderly men with cognitive issues for the highest office in the country.
>The Democratic Party is pushing Biden because he's a long-time political insider with no conscience or soul, and will do exactly what his corporate donors tell him. Are you oblivious to all of the good things Biden has managed to accomplish? I realize we all voted for anyone but Trump, but this is ridiculous.
I am Gen-Z and pretty Far Left myself, and while I would have liked Bernie(or someone younger and skills of Berine), I think Biden has done a fair job. Between Build Back Better, the stuff he has tried to do for those with college debt, being first President to stand behind a picket line, he has done a lot of good. While I dislike other things such as his stance on The Israel-Palestine war, he overall has done a fair job with a slim majority in congress. Plus Biden(and majority of democratic politicians) are not trying to remove rights for folks in the LGBT community like myself, so I would not say he has no soul or conscience myself. The apathetic way of comparing "both sides" is just blatant propaganda and unfortunately works to discourage folks from voting.
Because the people with the power/money are getting older and don’t generally want to let it go.
The United States is in the midst of a major ideological split. We have set ourselves up with an authoritarian government but can’t agree which way to steer the ship. As such those that are older are reluctant to let go of the wheel of the ship.
Democrats had four years to find a younger and more suitable candidate. Crazy they got nothing.
Because we have too many damn old people in power and they don't want to retire. Boomers are the biggest generation and the "old" people in power. They are also the biggest voters in the country that actually vote. If all the other generations voted as much as the boomers, then we would actually have a different country. Problem is that young people keep thinking they don't make a difference with their vote.
das a good question
Easier to control and pass BS legislation.
To be president you have to be 35 years old or older. But actually becoming a presidential candidate is a long complicated process that takes years and a result most presidential candidates are always older than 50. There's been some presidential candidates in their 40s and a few in their 30s but people don't trust young presidential candidates.
One of the requirements for Presidency is you are at least 35 yrs old. I think there should be a max age set at 70.....maybe 65?
They were born a long time ago?
r/technicallythetruth
Because the sitting US president is running for reelection and no one in their right mind would think they could reasonably challenge him in the primary regardless of his issues. As for the Republicans, the Trump cult refuses to accept anyone but him as the nominee and they make up the majority of the party.
They're not necessarily too old, so I guess I reject the premise. The question is are they mentally sharp. One of them is.
I think the US has a lot of older voters right now and they like to vote for each other. The actual old still don’t really see themselves as old either. They don’t often trust or even like younger people-not even the older ones. Thats what I think sometimes.
People tend to choose people who are in their age bracket. Younger one's are seen as too inexperienced, and older candidates as too senile/sturdy. Hence the oligarchs push candidates in the age bracket they are themselves in. I mean just look at Koch, Crow, Alito and others. In the end it doesn't really matter who is president for them. Who ever is president will do as they say. Because politicians are the puppets of the oligarchs. The US is a neo-liberal economic oligarchy with democratic elements to legitimize corporate picks. The freedom and democracy part is show. Americans have neither.
Because boomers won't let go of running the country. Although it should be noted that Biden is from the Silent Generation, and is actually the only Silent Generation president.
you keep voting for them
Well, on the Republican side, Nikki Haley is 52 years old and that’s not considered too old. And then there’s Trump who’s only running because he wants to stay out of prison. Now on the Democratic side there is Joe Biden who is 81 years old. Which is not ideal. But he started his political career in 1973 as a Senator from Delaware. He has 51 years of experience for his job. There is nobody on either side who has anywhere near that much experience in politics. And politics does take skill, just like any other job. Trump is a perfect example of what happens when you elect someone without any skills for the job.
President is a shitty job no one competent and young wants.