IMO this is at least in part the fault of a 2 party system. When voters are only presented with 2 options- and neither side is going to cross party lines over age, what are we as voters suppose to do?
IMO this is at least in part the fault of a 2 party system. When voters are only presented with 2 options- and neither side is going to cross party lines over age, what are we as voters suppose to do?
The 51-year-old Republican presidential candidate is not alone in raising gerontocracy – polls also show public disquiet
The former South Carolina governor has already called for politicians over the age of 75 to face mental competency tests with the US bracing itself for a rematch between 77-year-old Donald Trump and 80-year-old Joe Biden for the presidency
‘‘Mitch McConnell has done some great things and he deserves credit,” Ms Haley said.
“But you have to know when to leave. No one should feel good about seeing that,” she said of the incident.
“Any more than we should feel good about seeing Dianne Feinstein, any more than we should feel good about a lot of what’s happening or seeing Joe Biden’s decline.
“These are people making decisions on our national security. They’re making decisions on our economy, on the border,” Ms Haley added.
“We need to know they’re at the top of their game. You can’t say that right now looking at Congress.’’
A CBS poll last year showed that nearly three-quarters of voters supported a maximum age limit on elected officials, with 40 per cent of voters calling for a ceiling of 70 for politicians.
The oldest-ever member of the Senate was South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond, who reached 100 while still serving in June 2003.
I've posted this in my direct comment, but I'm going to post it again here. The Democrats are not the same as Republicans and both sidesing them is dangerous rhetoric for an important upcoming...
I've posted this in my direct comment, but I'm going to post it again here.
“Voting isn’t marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for “the one” who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn’t one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.”
The Democrats are not the same as Republicans and both sidesing them is dangerous rhetoric for an important upcoming election.
Women's Healthcare and rights are on the line. I don't see Democrats pushing for canceling FDA approval of the abortion pill, removing no-fault divorce, persecuting women who cross state lines for an abortion, targeting Trans youth and parents, pushing book bans, rural hospital closures, encouraging more guns, refusing to acknowledge police corruption and so much more.
As a woman I don't have the privilege to both sides because my Healthcare has been dramatically affected by those who decided to sit out the last election.
Yeah it’s the same as how congress in general has miserable approval ratings but each individual co congress person has strong approval ratings in their district. Plus when most of your voters are...
Yeah it’s the same as how congress in general has miserable approval ratings but each individual co congress person has strong approval ratings in their district.
Plus when most of your voters are old, they’re gonna keep electing olds.
I think the Democrats should have been doing everything they can to show that Biden is mentally sharp. Make everyone in the country know he has overcome a stutter, etc.
I think the Democrats should have been doing everything they can to show that Biden is mentally sharp. Make everyone in the country know he has overcome a stutter, etc.
While I agree that having aging politicians represent us is not a wise idea, I am not a fan of Haley and this article trying to both sides things. McConnell and Feinstein are obvious issues, but...
While I agree that having aging politicians represent us is not a wise idea, I am not a fan of Haley and this article trying to both sides things. McConnell and Feinstein are obvious issues, but attacking Biden reads to much like "both sides" logic to brew apathy against voting. Yes, Biden is old, but he is still mentally sound and is not actively trying to throw this nation into a Fascist one. Additionally, Feinstein's mental decline is very much affected by Republican antics. I agree she should step down and live out her older years in peace, but Republicans have actively said they will refuse to let her seat in the Senate Judiciary Committe be filled by a replacement thus stalling Biden appointees to federal courts. The same federal courts that are trying to throw their authority over the FDA approval of medications used for Abortion and Miscarriages.
This upcoming election is too critical to have this type of dangerous rhetoric to be discussed. The moment I see both sides arguments that lead into "Biden Old," it is hard to belive they are genuine and not attempting to encourage voter apathy. My Healthcare access as a woman has been severely effected by people refusing to vote for the "perfect" candidate; not voting has consequences and is an extremely privileged take to not care that your choice affects others.
“Voting isn’t marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for “the one” who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn’t one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.”
Calling this anything other than a bipartisan issue is inaccurate. There was very little reason for Feinstein to run for reelection and it's appalling that neither the voting public nor the DNC...
Calling this anything other than a bipartisan issue is inaccurate. There was very little reason for Feinstein to run for reelection and it's appalling that neither the voting public nor the DNC pushed back against it. It is extremely irresponsible for Biden to be running for reelection, since almost the entire country can agree that he's too old and this is by far the biggest threat to Democrats winning the presidency. Anyone saying otherwise is consuming copium to avoid making the Democrats look bad in the 2024 election.
Establishment Democrats are very out of touch if they think that name recognition is what is needed to beat Trump and that literally the only gripe the average American has with Biden isn't his...
Establishment Democrats are very out of touch if they think that name recognition is what is needed to beat Trump and that literally the only gripe the average American has with Biden isn't his age and declining mental acuity. Even if name recognition is that important, it's a profound failure of the Democratic party to not make use of the last 4 (!!) years to allow someone from within the party to make a name for themselves on the national stage.
Your blame of non-voters may be misplaced, and it also comes across a bit privileged to blame people without knowing who you're blaming or why they do or don't do what you want them to do....
My Healthcare access as a woman has been severely effected by people refusing to vote for the "perfect" candidate; not voting has consequences and is an extremely privileged take to not care that your choice affects others.
Your blame of non-voters may be misplaced, and it also comes across a bit privileged to blame people without knowing who you're blaming or why they do or don't do what you want them to do.
While they tend to be more Democratic-leaning nationwide, nonvoters in the states likeliest to decide the presidency are not overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats.
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters; about four-in-ten (41%) nonvoters were Republicans and Republican leaners. Voters were split almost evenly between Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) and Republicans and Republican leaners (48%).
Notably it does not distinguish between ones in swing states or not, so it can be compared to NY Times in the sense that they acknowledged that nation-wide they're more Democratic-leaning. There's a graphic that also shows almost half of non-voters are not white.
There also were wide income differences between voters and nonvoters. More than half (56%) of nonvoters reported annual family incomes under $30,000. Among voters, just 28% fell into this income category.
In this you basically see a trend that a lot of non-voters will say "dislike politics" or don't believe their vote will matter or are otherwise cynical of the electoral system.
This one suggests that non-voters break relatively evenly between Democrats and Republican. Also says a lot of similar things mentioned above, and has a lot more detail and break down about other aspects of non-voters. I tried to look up history and info on knight foundation to see if they had known political bias or anything but there wasn't any real mainstream or known sources that seemed to have anything to say about it.
Also shows it break relatively even between Democrat/Republican. And shows lack of trust in the system.
In all, the main thing to take away from all of them whether they have different numbers on party-leaning or not is seemingly a "dislike" of politics or overall distrust of the system and lack of faith in the system, and the dislike of politics seems to come from persistent negativity surrounding politics.
Also the fact that many are low-income and non-whites are over-represented in non-voters compared to the voting population seems to me that it's a bit misplaced and unfair to call people privileged for not voting.
The article was published in The Daily Telegraph, the house newspaper of the Conservative Party in the UK. The Telegraph's owners are currently trying to sell it. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's...
I am not a fan of Haley and this article trying to both sides things
The article was published in The Daily Telegraph, the house newspaper of the Conservative Party in the UK. The Telegraph's owners are currently trying to sell it.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government introduced the 'Right to Buy' reforms, in which which low-income households renting government-owned homes could buy them at below-market prices, as a ploy to win over the then-young-and-fractious Baby Boomers. Since then, British governments of all political persuasions have felt a need to inflate property prices, by not replacing the sold-off government housing and restricting house-building by the private sector. Consequently, the old class-based division that shaped British politics (the working class voted Labour, the middle class and aristocracy voted Conservative) has been replaced by an age-based division (the homeowning Baby Boomers and Gen Xers vote Conservative, the renting Millennials and Gen Zers vote Labour, Lib Dem, or Greens, according to the tactical voting situation in their constituency).
The owners of the Daily Telegraph have recently announced an intention to sell the newspaper. The British newspaper market is notoriously competitive (all newspapers of note are distributed nationally), so nearly all the papers are loss-making, and their only value is in their ability to shape public opinion. As the house newspaper of the Conservative Party, the Telegraph's readership is mainly Conservative members and voters, who are, to an increasing extent, exclusively elderly.
If you're trying to sell a newspaper, 'Everyone who reads this paper will be dead within twenty years,' isn't a great selling point. Over the past couple of months, there has been a spate of 'Boomers have stolen the Millennials' futures' articles submitted to the UK subreddits. The comments on these articles on the Telegraph website are the usual avocadoes-and-Netflix nonsense that one expects from a generation that is becoming an increasingly unbearable economic burden, but the comments on Reddit are cynical jabs at the role that the Telegraph has played over the past decades in creating this crisis. However, the persistence in the probably paid for submissions indicates that the Telegraph is desperate to increase its market value by acquiring younger readers, whose 'natural' progression from renting Labour voter to homeowning Conservative voter has been disrupted by the housing crisis.
The Telegraph's core readership (and owners) are politically aligned with the US Republican Party - most still support Liz 'Lettuce Lady' Truss's disastrous premiership (and her subsequent claims that the markets are controlled by the International Communist Conspiracy). They have no issue with Haley's role in the Trump administration, and the readers that the Telegraph wants to recruit don't care; Haley just happened to be the person who provided the skeleton of the intergenerational justice story the Telegraph wanted to run.
The people in this article are American, but the story is British.
Voting being more like transportation than marriage is spot on. Every election I've voted in has always fallen to which candidate I dislike the least more than which candidate I like the most....
Voting being more like transportation than marriage is spot on. Every election I've voted in has always fallen to which candidate I dislike the least more than which candidate I like the most.
I've heard people say they don't like this or that about a particular candidate, and I have to reply that I've yet to have the privilege of voting for someone I 100% agreed with. It isn't always pretty, but it is still a choice. Not voting is often a boycott tactic adopted by jaded individuals who fail to recognize that not voting is more of a choice for a candidate they would not have selected than one they would have.
I encourage all eligible voters to register and vote, and to not let perfect be the enemy of good.
So many people have "taken a swipe" at America's aging politicians. Why does Nikki Haley get her own little article and headline? Telegraph has been bribed to write this article???
So many people have "taken a swipe" at America's aging politicians. Why does Nikki Haley get her own little article and headline?
Telegraph has been bribed to write this article???
IMO this is at least in part the fault of a 2 party system. When voters are only presented with 2 options- and neither side is going to cross party lines over age, what are we as voters suppose to do?
David Millward
I understand the necessity but why are they being elected in the first place? And if they are winning then aren't the voters responsible?
I've posted this in my direct comment, but I'm going to post it again here.
The Democrats are not the same as Republicans and both sidesing them is dangerous rhetoric for an important upcoming election.
Women's Healthcare and rights are on the line. I don't see Democrats pushing for canceling FDA approval of the abortion pill, removing no-fault divorce, persecuting women who cross state lines for an abortion, targeting Trans youth and parents, pushing book bans, rural hospital closures, encouraging more guns, refusing to acknowledge police corruption and so much more.
As a woman I don't have the privilege to both sides because my Healthcare has been dramatically affected by those who decided to sit out the last election.
Yeah it’s the same as how congress in general has miserable approval ratings but each individual co congress person has strong approval ratings in their district.
Plus when most of your voters are old, they’re gonna keep electing olds.
I think the Democrats should have been doing everything they can to show that Biden is mentally sharp. Make everyone in the country know he has overcome a stutter, etc.
While I agree that having aging politicians represent us is not a wise idea, I am not a fan of Haley and this article trying to both sides things. McConnell and Feinstein are obvious issues, but attacking Biden reads to much like "both sides" logic to brew apathy against voting. Yes, Biden is old, but he is still mentally sound and is not actively trying to throw this nation into a Fascist one. Additionally, Feinstein's mental decline is very much affected by Republican antics. I agree she should step down and live out her older years in peace, but Republicans have actively said they will refuse to let her seat in the Senate Judiciary Committe be filled by a replacement thus stalling Biden appointees to federal courts. The same federal courts that are trying to throw their authority over the FDA approval of medications used for Abortion and Miscarriages.
This upcoming election is too critical to have this type of dangerous rhetoric to be discussed. The moment I see both sides arguments that lead into "Biden Old," it is hard to belive they are genuine and not attempting to encourage voter apathy. My Healthcare access as a woman has been severely effected by people refusing to vote for the "perfect" candidate; not voting has consequences and is an extremely privileged take to not care that your choice affects others.
Calling this anything other than a bipartisan issue is inaccurate. There was very little reason for Feinstein to run for reelection and it's appalling that neither the voting public nor the DNC pushed back against it. It is extremely irresponsible for Biden to be running for reelection, since almost the entire country can agree that he's too old and this is by far the biggest threat to Democrats winning the presidency. Anyone saying otherwise is consuming copium to avoid making the Democrats look bad in the 2024 election.
Establishment Democrats are very out of touch if they think that name recognition is what is needed to beat Trump and that literally the only gripe the average American has with Biden isn't his age and declining mental acuity. Even if name recognition is that important, it's a profound failure of the Democratic party to not make use of the last 4 (!!) years to allow someone from within the party to make a name for themselves on the national stage.
I think they tried to do that with Kamala Harris; it just didn't exactly succeed.
Your blame of non-voters may be misplaced, and it also comes across a bit privileged to blame people without knowing who you're blaming or why they do or don't do what you want them to do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/upshot/nonvoters-2020-presidential-election.html
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
Just to fairly represent what Pew Research shows compared to what the NY Times did
Notably it does not distinguish between ones in swing states or not, so it can be compared to NY Times in the sense that they acknowledged that nation-wide they're more Democratic-leaning. There's a graphic that also shows almost half of non-voters are not white.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/06/why-are-millions-of-citizens-not-registered-to-vote
In this you basically see a trend that a lot of non-voters will say "dislike politics" or don't believe their vote will matter or are otherwise cynical of the electoral system.
https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf
This one suggests that non-voters break relatively evenly between Democrats and Republican. Also says a lot of similar things mentioned above, and has a lot more detail and break down about other aspects of non-voters. I tried to look up history and info on knight foundation to see if they had known political bias or anything but there wasn't any real mainstream or known sources that seemed to have anything to say about it.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/non-voters-poll-2020-election/
Also shows it break relatively even between Democrat/Republican. And shows lack of trust in the system.
In all, the main thing to take away from all of them whether they have different numbers on party-leaning or not is seemingly a "dislike" of politics or overall distrust of the system and lack of faith in the system, and the dislike of politics seems to come from persistent negativity surrounding politics.
Also the fact that many are low-income and non-whites are over-represented in non-voters compared to the voting population seems to me that it's a bit misplaced and unfair to call people privileged for not voting.
The article was published in The Daily Telegraph, the house newspaper of the Conservative Party in the UK. The Telegraph's owners are currently trying to sell it.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government introduced the 'Right to Buy' reforms, in which which low-income households renting government-owned homes could buy them at below-market prices, as a ploy to win over the then-young-and-fractious Baby Boomers. Since then, British governments of all political persuasions have felt a need to inflate property prices, by not replacing the sold-off government housing and restricting house-building by the private sector. Consequently, the old class-based division that shaped British politics (the working class voted Labour, the middle class and aristocracy voted Conservative) has been replaced by an age-based division (the homeowning Baby Boomers and Gen Xers vote Conservative, the renting Millennials and Gen Zers vote Labour, Lib Dem, or Greens, according to the tactical voting situation in their constituency).
The owners of the Daily Telegraph have recently announced an intention to sell the newspaper. The British newspaper market is notoriously competitive (all newspapers of note are distributed nationally), so nearly all the papers are loss-making, and their only value is in their ability to shape public opinion. As the house newspaper of the Conservative Party, the Telegraph's readership is mainly Conservative members and voters, who are, to an increasing extent, exclusively elderly.
If you're trying to sell a newspaper, 'Everyone who reads this paper will be dead within twenty years,' isn't a great selling point. Over the past couple of months, there has been a spate of 'Boomers have stolen the Millennials' futures' articles submitted to the UK subreddits. The comments on these articles on the Telegraph website are the usual avocadoes-and-Netflix nonsense that one expects from a generation that is becoming an increasingly unbearable economic burden, but the comments on Reddit are cynical jabs at the role that the Telegraph has played over the past decades in creating this crisis. However, the persistence in the probably paid for submissions indicates that the Telegraph is desperate to increase its market value by acquiring younger readers, whose 'natural' progression from renting Labour voter to homeowning Conservative voter has been disrupted by the housing crisis.
The Telegraph's core readership (and owners) are politically aligned with the US Republican Party - most still support Liz 'Lettuce Lady' Truss's disastrous premiership (and her subsequent claims that the markets are controlled by the International Communist Conspiracy). They have no issue with Haley's role in the Trump administration, and the readers that the Telegraph wants to recruit don't care; Haley just happened to be the person who provided the skeleton of the intergenerational justice story the Telegraph wanted to run.
The people in this article are American, but the story is British.
Voting being more like transportation than marriage is spot on. Every election I've voted in has always fallen to which candidate I dislike the least more than which candidate I like the most.
I've heard people say they don't like this or that about a particular candidate, and I have to reply that I've yet to have the privilege of voting for someone I 100% agreed with. It isn't always pretty, but it is still a choice. Not voting is often a boycott tactic adopted by jaded individuals who fail to recognize that not voting is more of a choice for a candidate they would not have selected than one they would have.
I encourage all eligible voters to register and vote, and to not let perfect be the enemy of good.
So many people have "taken a swipe" at America's aging politicians. Why does Nikki Haley get her own little article and headline?
Telegraph has been bribed to write this article???