this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
235 points (96.1% liked)

Not The Onion

21314 readers
802 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45996578

Democratic members of Congress know they have an age problem—and it’s hurting them.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Most of the Old guard Democrats need to go. They've been running the same playbook for years and it's simply not working. Voters are no longer interested in performant bills with no chance of passing and politicians that break even modest campaign promises. The population is ready for real change, to be done with the status quo.

Look at my home state of Connecticut as an example. Electricity here is among the most expensive in the nation. Our state is solidly blue, but the Democrats do very little to regulate the electrical monopoly and yet every election they trot out the same nonsense about programs that help poor people afford heat. Well guess what guys, the rest of us are suffering too. You don't have to be below the poverty line and qualify for assistance to be hurting.

It's the same crap nationally. We pay a lot in taxes, much of it is wasted we're blown away on pork, and there is no meaningful change.

DNC needs to scrap the old playbook focus on issues that everybody can get behind, not just the base. Abandon wedge issues like gun control which only piss off rural moderates, stop making trans equality the hill to die on, and instead focus on things everybody wants like getting corruption out of Washington, efficient use of government funds, reducing waste, and protecting consumers from the worst offenders like big banks.

Rein in private equity a little, get big investors out of the single family housing market, make home ownership affordable. That's the sort of thing that gets you votes.

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Lmao, what is it with online leftists thinking gun control is unpopular? If the Dems went pro gun, they'd lose more voters than they'd gain. Guaranteed.

Those "rural moderates" don't exist. I live in a rural area. They're all maga knob washers who are too scared or manipulative to own it. All of them. We get pro-gun Democrat candidates all the time and the "rural moderates" never vote for them. They're liars. They invent new excuses to vote for the GOP.

Your ideas are not new and they don't work.

Give people things that have a direct impact on their wallet. That's how you win elections in this country. No one actually cares about government waste, it's a dog whistle for shitting on poor people and minorities.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Oh I mostly agree, but you think the Dems are making trans equality a hill to die on? ... Which Dems? ... Yeah, I don't see it.

The majority of Washington Democrats are scared to openly talk about racism and other kinds of discrimination. They don't want to "lose the silent center" or some bullshit.

If you want (some) Dems to drop their values, maybe they gotta find them first.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 3 points 11 hours ago

I admit I'm going back a few years. And perhaps not 'a hill to die on' but a notable part of the platform.

I think the answer should be simple- we stand against racism everywhere. Anywhere it is existing needs to stop.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The DNC endorsed replacement be like…

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 13 hours ago

they might try to ask a lich to reanimate feinsteins corpse.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Does not help that election day is on a workday, so only the retired olds have the free time to easily vote.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I love the use of "olds" as a pejorative 😂

[–] Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We need an age cap on politicians. I’m sick of these old fucks screwing everything up and dying in a cushy job.

Get the fuck out and let new young people who haven’t had their soul destroyed yet do something.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 1 points 3 hours ago

I assume that Democrats can decide who is allowed to call themselves a "Democrat". So just make a rule that nobody is allowed to run in an election where they will be 70+ years old on the day of taking office.

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 123 points 2 days ago (18 children)

At a certain age, people stop working. And at an even more advanced age, people stop driving. It obviously shows that even the sharpest of minds age. So why the hell are people allowed to work until they literally expire. We need age limits for the government. I'm sick of old people so far removed from today's culture making rules based on Jim Crow era guidelines. Our last two presidents have been barely functional, dementia-riddled puppets AT BEST.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I just want to caution against us developing the stereotype that people’s capabilities slowly fade to zero, at which moment they die. That’s not always how it goes. People can die suddenly at any age, but the odds go up as you get older. You can die at 80 but still be productive when it happens. Your productivity can also go to zero years before you actually expire.

We have an elderly problem in US governance, but let’s not address it with a bunch of stereotypes about the elderly.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I hope I die before I get old.

I don't mind if I live to 120, but when I get to that stage where I need other people to do more for me than I can do for myself... it's time to quit before I get farther behind.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 15 hours ago

Same. I want to enjoy life, not exist for existence's sake. Two days ago, the household's cat was clearly dying...barely cognizant, and what there was, is clearly miserable. Euthanasia was sweet release from the barfing, hunger, and exhaustion.

I want the ability to choose when I leave, to do so with peace, and with a plan for everybody involved.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was confused, because Obama wasn't dementia riddled.....then I remembered Biden existed.

Thats how forgetable his term was.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 day ago (6 children)

With the notable exception of Obama, every US President since 1993 has been born in the 1940s. Thats over 3 decades with presidents born at almost the same time (most in the same year).

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] shirasho@feddit.online 10 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The arguments against this are that old people pay taxes and should have their fair share of representation in government.

The problem here is that olds are going to nominate olds and the ideals of the young are being completely ignored, so the younger populations are not being fairly represented. The DNC and GOP are both putting their worst and oldest candidates forward.

All offices need an age cap of 65, and the Supreme Court justices need an age cap of 60 and have term limits of no longer than 5 years. Supreme Court justices should be nominated elected by the people to make sure they balance the needs of the people with the wants of the president.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 0 points 17 hours ago

Cap at 65 is arbitrary and extreme... I might have thought that when I was 12, but reality is: experience matters. Still, dementia matters too, but 65 is no guarantee of dementia, yet. https://old.reddit.com/r/DownWithIncumbency/

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] finalarbiter@piefed.social 74 points 1 day ago

Maybe they should stop platforming these geriatric fucks and make space for the next generation then.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

C'mon team, if you're like 72, get the heck out of there and let new people try.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I wrote this 3 years ago, just as true today as then:

https://old.reddit.com/r/DownWithIncumbency/comments/uxgcrp/we_should_not_serve_the_dead/

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was born in 1933, assumed her office in 1992, and still serves today at the age of 88. Thank you for your service Dianne, but don't you think it's past time to groom a younger protege to take your place?

The laws shaped and passed by our statesmen, elder and otherwise, will control how people live for decades to come. Not only should they be of sound mind when crafting and considering these laws, they should also have a bit of skin in the game: live with the results of their decisions for at least some time.

U.S. Presidents must be at least 35 years of age. I propose that, ideally, they should also not be much over 70 years of age while serving. To gently shape our current system toward this ideal, we might modify election laws to deduct age points from candidates who will be over this age threshold while serving. For instance:

For every year in which the candidate would be over the age threshold while serving their term, one electoral point is deducted from their total for each year of age they will be over the threshold.

If the ultimate age threshold is 70, and a presidential candidate will be 66 years of age or younger when sworn in for a four year term, then that candidate will receive all electoral points the same as they do today. But, if they are 67, and their elected term runs at least 6 months past their 70th birthday, then one electoral point is deducted from their total when deciding the election outcome for that period of "age over threshold" during their term. If they are 68, then there would be one point deducted for the third year of their term and two points deducted for the fourth, a total of 3 points off. If they would be 80 when assuming office then that would be 10+11+12+13=46 electoral points deducted, making victory difficult, but not impossible.

If an older candidate truly is the better choice and will win by such a wide margin, then let the people choose them to continue to serve. But their advantages need to be clear over a younger candidate.

To avoid disruption to the current system and fields of candidates, the age threshold could be "soft started" at 90 and reduced by one year per year until it reaches 70. So, if this system of old age disadvantage were started in the year 2025, it would not reach its final age of 70 until 2045.

Senators and members of the House of Representatives could face similar age disadvantages, granting 0.25% of the popular vote per year of age that would be served over the threshold age. If an 88 year old senator runs for re-election against an age threshold of 70, they would be granting their opponent an (18+19+20+21+22+23)*0.25 = 30.75% advantage in the election, in other words they would need to win more than 80.75% of the popular vote in order to be elected against a candidate 64 years of age or younger.

We've got the wisdom of the elders in the Supreme Court, keep the new laws relevant to the people who they will be impacting.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

the gop also had one of thier own old farts vote in congress, i believe she had dementia and was living in a nursing home at the time when a critical bill was being passed. and feinstien got shingles which caused encephalitis causing her to rapidly deteriorate.

[–] ChokingHazard@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah like 64 is an age when you still have some umph and you're not totally old.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You're telling me I'll still have some umph when I'm 64 - that you'll still need me, that you'll still feed me?

Hard to believe from here in the run-up to it, seems like I'm picking up speed on the back side of the hill...

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

My dad was Just fine until his 70's.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

My dad is pushing 80 and still doing o.k. - not super great, but I hope to be doing as well when I get there.

My mom's dad was on all kinds of blood pressure meds, and they mentally aged him prematurely - after a decade of the slowly gathering fog they changed up the meds and it was literally like they reset his mind to what it was 10 years earlier.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Committee assignments are granted by seniority, so it's advantageous to have legislators with a lot of seniority.

In the Senate, West Virginia had Robert Byrd for basically forever


he was the longest-serving senator in American history, died in office


and so he got to lead the Appropriations Committee, which gets to direct money places, which is a pretty desirable spot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Robert Carlyle Byrd (born Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr.; November 20, 1917 – June 28, 2010) was an American politician who served as a United States senator from West Virginia for over 51 years, from 1959 until his death in 2010. A Democrat, Byrd also served as a U.S. representative for six years, from 1953 until 1959. He remains the longest-serving U.S. senator in history; he was the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress[1][2][3][4] until surpassed by Representative John Dingell of Michigan.

Byrd became West Virginia’s Senior Senator in 1985 following the retirement of Jennings Randolph. He served three different tenures as chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, which enabled Byrd to steer a great deal of federal money toward projects in West Virginia.[9] Critics derided his efforts as pork barrel spending,[10] while Byrd argued that the many federal projects he worked to bring to West Virginia represented progress for the people of his state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Committee leadership in the House is often associated with seniority, especially in the Democratic Caucus. The Republican leadership, in comparison with the Democratic Party, prioritizes voting records and campaign fundraising over seniority for committee leadership.[2] Party leadership in the House is not strictly associated with seniority.

The more senior a representative is, the more likely the representative is to receive desirable committee assignments or leadership posts.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

Committee assignments are granted by seniority, so

that needs to change. Maybe cap the senority advantage at 10 years, or 5? Draw god-damned straws before giving the gavel to the most senile.

[–] cockmushroom@reddthat.com 2 points 1 day ago

Wonderfully articulate description of another aspect of us meta-policy that needs reformation

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

DNC treated David Hogg like shit after he was elected to the DNC on the getting rid of geriatric incumbents. He's working outside of them now because he realizes it's rotten.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

he was a threat to the DNC so they ousted him, thats why they also laid of attacking zohran on the airwaves. there was this veteran "presley" guy that was mostly ignored by the dnc that was funding all these wars, they dont want anyone like that on thier team one bit.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (7 children)

What's been keeping them in office the last couple decades was a corrupt DNC that would blackball individuals/companies that worked to challenge incumbents, even going so far to bankrupt whole state parties to punish reps who didn't toe the party line

That's over, it's been over. Current DNC has been dumping that money that was hoarded back to state parties, so they can't use it as a club later.

And Martin ran Minnesota for a decade, he's never endorsed a candidate before the primary, never put fingers on the scales, and the result was the state going from purple to progressive insanely quickly.

Some state parties are still shitty, but these coming elections are the best chance we've had since the 90s to get new blood in.

No matter what happens, we need to get people to vote in upcoming Dem primaries

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›