Do we need term limits for congressmen? Or should we just let people elect who they want for as long as they want? Are term limits even constitutional?
With a nod to Rick, how about this - go back to "Founding Fathers" and congressmen serve without pay, pension, and insurance. They run for office and serve as a privilege and honor for being asked to represent their constituents. After office they go back home, clean out the barn, and go back to work as a private citizen. Comments?
Term limits for everyone except Larry D for Mayor! He can be the Mayor of Jefferson for as long as he wants. He can set any rules he wants and keep the Dairy Queen open for as long as he wants them to remain open!
It shows what a depressingly sorry person the average voter is when you actually have to consider forcing people to quit running because the electorate will continue to vote for him forever, even when he's 90 years old and has to be wheeled into the Senate Chamber from his bed at Walter Reed Hospital in order not to miss crucial votes.
When senators die, voters actually simply vote for their spouses. No shit! Because voters need to be told when to quit voting for a senile one-foot-in-the-grave has-been, term limits are apparently going to have to be considered.
I agree with Marty that these guys should serve as an honor with little or no pay. That being said, I'm afraid that would only increase the amount of corruption we already find. Lawmakers would be finding ways to sell their votes and cash in during the allotted time. That is the real problem.
Gerrymandering to insure "safe" districts has made a mockery of the House's being designed to be the most responsive to the people of their district. 10% of the districts are "quota" districts for blacks. That's why Washington is so polarized. No competition.
I date pork for the highest elected officials starting innocently with Harry Truman leaving the Presidency and getting a pension bcz he was not well off. 55 years later the pensions, perks and benefits are removed from all reality.
Forcing politicians to take politics out of the equation is like ripping the lollipop out of a 2year olds hand. Should make for a great You-Tube.
Probably almost everyone on this thread will be for term limits. It's just an easy way of cleaning up some bad problems that individual voters are not bright enough to take care of themselves.
The thing is, there are some negatives that accompany term limits. For one, you will almost always be electing people with little or no experience. For another, voters should be able to retain an elected official who is doing a really good, honest job.
What if a good, honest, experienced congressman was forced to step down and was replaced by a corrupt, incompetent novice? What have you gained there?
The best things from my angle in having term limits are. 1. Fresh ideas 2. Minimizing the amount of congressmen that are "owned" by special interest groups. The biggest issue I see is actually we need campaign finance reform more than term limits.If you dont spend over $600,000 your chances of being elected are nill. In fact I read where no candidate spending less than 200,000 beat an incumbant. Special interest groups know which congressmen to toss campaign dollars at for future attention. Very few first time candidates can swing that kind of cabbage. Setting a limit for spending would give the challengers a leg to stand on.
When the original few congresses met, they convened for just a few months a year, in the winter. Nobody envisioned a time when people would actually seek out these offices. Representatives had to get back to their professions as quickly as possible.
The main disadvantage to term limits was originally pointed out by Alexander Hamilton, when the idea was debated in 1787. The adoption of term limits, he stated, severely limits the accountability of elected officials. They do not have to answer to the voters in a future election. When representatives are only elected once or twice, they can do away with the pretense of respectability, and not concern themselves with the effect their actions will have on the electorate.
Rick - I would like to know how you actually stand on this matter. You start out opening this posting at one end of the stick as wondering why voters keep voting in old standards and on your 1/15 post say that in house politicians should be kept around to keep things in line. I also think that your "pretense of respectability" should actually be read as their "pretense of responsibility".
I'm open to ideas on this, but I guess I really don't think term limits are the answer. They might end up causing more harm than good. As I said, the real problem is not politicians growing corrupt and detatched; it is a vast electorate of uneducated, mindless voters who trot to the polls every even year and cast votes for candidates based on the reason that they've heard of him, or seen him once, or recognize his name.
You see it every year. When all these uninformed and lazy voters get together, they create a situation where incumbents almost can't lose. No matter what they do, the voters refuse to vote them out of office.
You see it right now. Currently, only about 20% of the electorate feel that congress is doing even a satisfactory job. That is nearly an all-time low. But guess what? This fall, nearly 100% of them will be re-elected. The typical voter thinks congress stinks, but isn't smart enough to vote against them.
You can also see the solution. We can't upgrade congress, because the voters only vote for incumbents. Therefore you have to upgrade the electorate. We need to reinstall voting requirements that our founding fathers had absolutely no difficulty with. Start by limiting voting rights to property owners. This is not a new concept; the first 50 years or so of our republic saw this enforced. If that doesn't work, consider college-graduates only or higher education.
Term limits might not be the best answer, Rick, but nobody can convince me of a more effective way to rid ourselves of corrupt and/or self-seving politicians who are in office solely to line their own pockets.
No matter how corrupt Bill Clinton was, no matter how many scandals he caused, and no matter how many laws he broke, a vision-clouded community of voters swooned at his feet. Fortunately, presidents are subject to term limits. That is how we know that a similar law should also be applied to the legislative branch.
Bring back literacy tests and poll taxes! By declaring these measures unconstitutional, the Supreme Court basically stated that people had the right to vote, no matter how uneducated, uninformed, or mentally impaired they were. That means totally ignorant people who haven't read a newspaper in years, or maybe even can't read get the same amount of say in electing our president and representatives as Rhodes scholars. What a system.
We would have those same ignorant people voting for FDR over and over again because he kept giving them handouts. I'm sure he was the one who started people voting form whoever promised them the most government handouts. They would have voted for him if he had been in a coma.
As I see it, the problem is not term limit (why kick out a good politician or someone that reaches a high chairmanship and can help their constituents) but reform lobbyist influence on the process. Big business has found that the cost of campaigns allow them unprecedented access to politicians that was never conceived or thought possible until elections became so expensive. Politicians need money and big business/the rich have it. Politicians have little time for individual citizens since all fundraising must begin Day One for the next election cycle. That is the part of the process that needs reformed but no politician will lead that charge since the $$$ will dry up with Big Business/the Rich will hope this is defeated and their influence will go away. Simple solution but difficult process given present day realities.
The people who are put in charge of drawing up the rules for reform are - you guessed it - the politicians who are benefitting from the current system.
The president needs to bypass the lawmakers and take his case directly to the American people, who in turn should insist on a constitutional convention convening and sorting it all out.
In lots of countries, you wouldn't have this problem. Most African countries and some in the far east just off the politicians or leaders when they grow tired of them. There are countries in Africa that have not had to hold elections for many generations because of this. Besides, if the election comes out unfavorably, just disallow the results.
Sure, these systems have their own other problems. But the question was how to solve the term limit problem specifically. I think one of these forms of government would do that just fine.
I have included the photo of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley at the top of this thread as the perfect example of what we are talking about. Mr. Grassley was born in 1933, making him 77 years old.
From 1958 through 1974, he was an Iowa state legislator. After that he served three terms in the US House of Representatives. He was elected to his Senate seat in 1980. For the last 56 years (since he was 21), Chuck Grassley has had no employment other than as a politician. Is that really the type of individual we want representing us?
Grassley's fellow Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin, is only 71. Harkin graduated from law shool in 1972 and immediately ran for the state representative seat held by William Scherle. He defeated Scherle in 1974, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, and was re-elected to that seat four more times. He was elected US Senator in 1984 and has served in the senate longer than any democrat in Iowa's history.
Neither of these men has held real jobs, yet they like to spend their campaign time talking about their family farms, and their local connections (neither one lives in Iowa). They spend their time hob-nobbing with the Washington elite. Harkin maintains a residence in the Caribbean and both live in Baltimore, MD.
Iowa voters will no doubt re-elect both of these guys ad nauseum. Why the Iowa electorate feels that a couple of guys in their 80's who haven't lived here for years would be perfect people to go to Washington and take care of things is beyond me. I don't even like 80-year-olds driving.
If you want examples of why term limits are necessary, Iowans need look no farther than their own doorsteps.
Harkin and Grassley keep getting votes because of all the pork barrel they bring to our districts. As long as the money flows in, people will keep voting incumbent.
I really think that this money woulf flow in even without these two, though, because even new congressmen can sell their votes.
1. Senator Strom Thurmond represented South Carolina for fifty years from 1954-2003, when he virtually died in office at the age of 100. At that point he resided at Walter Reed hospital, only attending Senate votes when his would break a tie, being wheeled in in a wheelchair with an oxygen mask. His state kept re-electing him. At the end, he couldn't drive, and could barely read and write. But apparently, he was still qualified to be a US Senator.
2. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has served in the senate longer than any other person ever - 51 years, and is currently 83 years old. It looks like his state will continue to elect him until he is dead, and maybe even after that. Mr. Byrd generally only strays into the senate chamber these days when a tv appearance is guaranteed. He is visibly in poor health, and shakes badly. If he was your dad, you would put him in a home, not the senate.
It would be interesting to know what the median age is in S.Carolina and W.Virginia. Maybe old folks are just electing old folks or just a familiar name. I will guarantee that is what is happening in Iowa. What do you think, Rick, do we have that info?
Iowa ranks as the 13th oldest state, with a median age of 38.0. West Virginia is the third oldest state, with a median age of 40.3. South Carolina, by contrast, is right in the middle of the pack, ranking 25th, with a median age of 36.9.
I think it's commonly-held opinion that older voters are reluctant to vote for young candidates. Just like it's generally accepted that as people grow older, they usually don't see themselves as older, or at least don't consider themselves to be gradually losing ground on the intellectual curve.
They will use catch-phrases when describing themselves, like "you're only as old as you feel." I prefer to say "you're only as old as you act." Regardless of how you feel, if you go around writing checks at the supermarket, mailing letters instead of electronic communications, and talking about your ailments, you are probably old.
That also helps to explain why the Republican presidential candidate is almost always drawing social security checks.
Not only that, Rick, but the average age of an Iowa caucus-goer is over 55 years old! That is an incredible number. That means that there are precincts in Iowa where a 60-year-old man could show up and be the youngest guy at the caucus. It is not hard to see why Grassley and Harkin keep getting elected.
You will never have younger, more imaginative candidates represent Iowa. That is, at least not until an Hispanic candidate runs 50 years from now.
Rick- I'd be real interested in knowing the median age of peole that voted for Obama. Not to hijack the conversation, but I see Branstad has already raised 1.5 million to run against Culver who has 2.1 million. Unbelievable!!
A couple of interesting demographics on the 2008 election that people really need to think about.
1. White voters voted for John McCain, by 55% - 48%
2. The ONLY age demographic that John McCain carried was the over-65 group.
That's right, only retired people (the same age as McCain) voted for him. That makes it clear that even though most white voters voted with him, all other racial groups voted heavily against him.
Obama wasn't elected only by young voters. people aged 40-65 also elected him. Republicans will continue to have poor showings until they nominate a younger, more progressive candidate.
The last time the Republican pres. candidate was more than 2 years younger than the Democrat was Thomas Dewey in 1944 & 1948.
The Rep. prefer an old warhorse that they know where he is coming from and won't screw up too badly.
The Democrats like a younger guy who would like to expand the federal gov't's role, if possible. The governmental experience between the 2 candidates usually isn't great bcz the Rebuplican spent more time in the private sector.
For 40+ years conservatives have outnumbered liberals in the U.S. roughly 37% to 19%. I believe Republicans need a principled communicater who leads.
Reagan had pragmatic moderates all around him who could navigate the treacherous waters of our Capitol.
It seems the Democratics enjoy a more spirited Presidential horse race, and decide it with the dignity of a fraternity. The Democrats want a new toy to play with.
The Republicans lack that stamina, want to get rid of all but the top 3 candidates, and want it over. It's more of a country club setting where they all have better things to do. They're sick of the same old process. "Isn't it old Prescott's turn this time? His son and grandson have already served?"
I think Diamond Dave is correct in his assessment. I really think that the Republican party is missing the boat by continually nominating old "warhorses". The demographic is changing and they are being left behind.
Women are already voting for younger, better-looking candidates. They always have. Minority groups such as Hispanics also seem to favor younger candidates. I have no problem with voting for somebody who represents your ideals, but it comes down to winning. If Republicans over 55 insist that no young person can represent them, they will continue to lose presidential elections.
If you are a Republican, just eliminate every candidate 65+ from the equation. Start there. Then start looking around for a good-looking well-spoken moderate with a conservative record. It would help if he had a short, recognizable name.
"The Republicans prefer an old warhorse that they know ... won't screw up too badly."
That sentence contains the problem with Republicans' thinking. Apparently, they are unwilling to hand the reins over to a younger person, because they think that young people screw up. Only old, retired folks are immune from screwing up. That is pure B.S.
The history of the presidency is littered with old warhorses screwing things up. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about kids here. By younger candidates, I mean 50-59 years old. They are no more prone to screwing up than 60-69 year olds. Old people have a tendency to think that they possess a vast storage of experience and knowledge that people even ten years younger do not. That is not always true. Sometimes they are just old.
I totally agree on bringing in the young guys. Let them have a crack at it. Do you honestly think they would screw things up any worse than they are now??
Mike, thanks for the question. The answer might surprise you. Democrats outnumber Republicans in every age group. What you have to do is look at the age groups where they are the strongest to get an idea of where their strength lies.
Their greatest advantage is among voter under 30, and among baby- boomers in their late 40s and 50s. Republicans come closest to parity with Democrats among Generation Xers in their 30s and 40s, and among seniors. Young people also tend to describe themselves as Independents, and the number of Independents steadily drops as they age.
The number of people identifying themselves as Republicans shows a steady, gradual increase as they grow older. In contrast, the number of Democrats remains somewhat constant, regardless of age, hovering between 35 and 45%.
One could conclude that as people grow older, the Independents gradually fall into the Republican camp.
In the 1990's, congressional term limits were put on the ballot in 23 states. voters in every one of those states approved term limits by an average margin of 2-1.
Then, in 1995, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states could not impose term limits.
Like you point out, politicians simply do not know when to stop. Franklin D. Roosevelt singlehandedly is responsible for the 22nd amendment (limiting presidents to two terms), when death was the only thing that prevented him from becoming President for life.
Have you even stopped to digest any of these numbers? Let's start with the current average age of a U.S. Senator - 62! That's the average! That's right, your average senator is retired and no longer affected by most laws he/she passes. They are predominantly white, and Catholic.
The average member of the House of Representatives has served for nearly six terms! He/she has been elected six times in a row - must be doing a great job!
This ranks as the oldest set of chambers ever to serve.
State of Oklahoma currently has a bill before its' legislatures to apply "states rights" and the 10th Amendment to the Federal gov't.
"Right now we pay our federal taxes directly to the IRS and the federal government dangles that money like a carrot before the states to get the states to do the bidding of the federal government. HB2810 is designed to reverse that role. If HB2810 passes then we will all send our federal taxes to the state government who will in turn pay them to the federal government for all of us in the state. If the federal government should do something that the state of Oklahoma believes they should not do (think of all the unconstitutional measures of the federal government!) then the state can delay or even withhold the funds.The state can then dangle the carrot before our over reaching federal government instead of the other way around. This is an important tool that can help along with other measures to show our federal government that they are going too far.
This legislation is a part of the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance slate of States Rights Legislation.
43 comments:
With a nod to Rick, how about this - go back to "Founding Fathers" and congressmen serve without pay, pension, and insurance. They run for office and serve as a privilege and honor for being asked to represent their constituents. After office they go back home, clean out the barn, and go back to work as a private citizen. Comments?
Term limits for everyone except Larry D for Mayor! He can be the Mayor of Jefferson for as long as he wants. He can set any rules he wants and keep the Dairy Queen open for as long as he wants them to remain open!
It shows what a depressingly sorry person the average voter is when you actually have to consider forcing people to quit running because the electorate will continue to vote for him forever, even when he's 90 years old and has to be wheeled into the Senate Chamber from his bed at Walter Reed Hospital in order not to miss crucial votes.
When senators die, voters actually simply vote for their spouses. No shit! Because voters need to be told when to quit voting for a senile one-foot-in-the-grave has-been, term limits are apparently going to have to be considered.
I agree with Marty that these guys should serve as an honor with little or no pay. That being said, I'm afraid that would only increase the amount of corruption we already find. Lawmakers would be finding ways to sell their votes and cash in during the allotted time. That is the real problem.
Gerrymandering to insure "safe" districts has made a mockery of the House's being designed to be the most responsive to the people of their district. 10% of the districts are "quota" districts for blacks. That's why Washington is so polarized. No competition.
I date pork for the highest elected officials starting innocently with Harry Truman leaving the Presidency and getting a pension bcz he was not well off. 55 years later the pensions, perks and benefits are removed from all reality.
Forcing politicians to take politics out of the equation is like ripping the lollipop out of a 2year olds hand. Should make for a great You-Tube.
Probably almost everyone on this thread will be for term limits. It's just an easy way of cleaning up some bad problems that individual voters are not bright enough to take care of themselves.
The thing is, there are some negatives that accompany term limits. For one, you will almost always be electing people with little or no experience. For another, voters should be able to retain an elected official who is doing a really good, honest job.
What if a good, honest, experienced congressman was forced to step down and was replaced by a corrupt, incompetent novice? What have you gained there?
The best things from my angle in having term limits are.
1. Fresh ideas
2. Minimizing the amount of congressmen that are "owned" by special interest groups.
The biggest issue I see is actually we need campaign finance reform more than term limits.If you dont spend over $600,000 your chances of being elected are nill. In fact I read where no candidate spending less than 200,000 beat an incumbant. Special interest groups know which congressmen to toss campaign dollars at for future attention. Very few first time candidates can swing that kind of cabbage.
Setting a limit for spending would give the challengers a leg to stand on.
When the original few congresses met, they convened for just a few months a year, in the winter. Nobody envisioned a time when people would actually seek out these offices. Representatives had to get back to their professions as quickly as possible.
The main disadvantage to term limits was originally pointed out by Alexander Hamilton, when the idea was debated in 1787. The adoption of term limits, he stated, severely limits the accountability of elected officials. They do not have to answer to the voters in a future election. When representatives are only elected once or twice, they can do away with the pretense of respectability, and not concern themselves with the effect their actions will have on the electorate.
Rick - I would like to know how you actually stand on this matter. You start out opening this posting at one end of the stick as wondering why voters keep voting in old standards and on your 1/15 post say that in house politicians should be kept around to keep things in line. I also think that your "pretense of respectability" should actually be read as their "pretense of responsibility".
Who was the first President to get a pension for life? Don't tell, Rick.
I'm open to ideas on this, but I guess I really don't think term limits are the answer. They might end up causing more harm than good. As I said, the real problem is not politicians growing corrupt and detatched; it is a vast electorate of uneducated, mindless voters who trot to the polls every even year and cast votes for candidates based on the reason that they've heard of him, or seen him once, or recognize his name.
You see it every year. When all these uninformed and lazy voters get together, they create a situation where incumbents almost can't lose. No matter what they do, the voters refuse to vote them out of office.
You see it right now. Currently, only about 20% of the electorate feel that congress is doing even a satisfactory job. That is nearly an all-time low. But guess what? This fall, nearly 100% of them will be re-elected. The typical voter thinks congress stinks, but isn't smart enough to vote against them.
You can also see the solution. We can't upgrade congress, because the voters only vote for incumbents. Therefore you have to upgrade the electorate. We need to reinstall voting requirements that our founding fathers had absolutely no difficulty with. Start by limiting voting rights to property owners. This is not a new concept; the first 50 years or so of our republic saw this enforced. If that doesn't work, consider college-graduates only or higher education.
Whatever it takes, I'm open to suggestions.
Harry Truman
Term limits might not be the best answer, Rick, but nobody can convince me of a more effective way to rid ourselves of corrupt and/or self-seving politicians who are in office solely to line their own pockets.
No matter how corrupt Bill Clinton was, no matter how many scandals he caused, and no matter how many laws he broke, a vision-clouded community of voters swooned at his feet. Fortunately, presidents are subject to term limits. That is how we know that a similar law should also be applied to the legislative branch.
Bring back literacy tests and poll taxes! By declaring these measures unconstitutional, the Supreme Court basically stated that people had the right to vote, no matter how uneducated, uninformed, or mentally impaired they were. That means totally ignorant people who haven't read a newspaper in years, or maybe even can't read get the same amount of say in electing our president and representatives as Rhodes scholars. What a system.
Would you vote to rescind presidential term limits and bring them into line with the legislature?
We would have those same ignorant people voting for FDR over and over again because he kept giving them handouts. I'm sure he was the one who started people voting form whoever promised them the most government handouts. They would have voted for him if he had been in a coma.
As I see it, the problem is not term limit (why kick out a good politician or someone that reaches a high chairmanship and can help their constituents) but reform lobbyist influence on the process. Big business has found that the cost of campaigns allow them unprecedented access to politicians that was never conceived or thought possible until elections became so expensive. Politicians need money and big business/the rich have it. Politicians have little time for individual citizens since all fundraising must begin Day One for the next election cycle.
That is the part of the process that needs reformed but no politician will lead that charge since the $$$ will dry up with Big Business/the Rich will hope this is defeated and their influence will go away. Simple solution but difficult process given present day realities.
The people who are put in charge of drawing up the rules for reform are - you guessed it - the politicians who are benefitting from the current system.
The president needs to bypass the lawmakers and take his case directly to the American people, who in turn should insist on a constitutional convention convening and sorting it all out.
In lots of countries, you wouldn't have this problem. Most African countries and some in the far east just off the politicians or leaders when they grow tired of them. There are countries in Africa that have not had to hold elections for many generations because of this. Besides, if the election comes out unfavorably, just disallow the results.
Sure, these systems have their own other problems. But the question was how to solve the term limit problem specifically. I think one of these forms of government would do that just fine.
Off to the Dairy Queen.
No offense, Larry, but that's your most asinine post yet. The only part that I agreed with was the part about the DQ.
I have included the photo of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley at the top of this thread as the perfect example of what we are talking about. Mr. Grassley was born in 1933, making him 77 years old.
From 1958 through 1974, he was an Iowa state legislator. After that he served three terms in the US House of Representatives. He was elected to his Senate seat in 1980. For the last 56 years (since he was 21), Chuck Grassley has had no employment other than as a politician. Is that really the type of individual we want representing us?
Grassley's fellow Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin, is only 71. Harkin graduated from law shool in 1972 and immediately ran for the state representative seat held by William Scherle. He defeated Scherle in 1974, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, and was re-elected to that seat four more times. He was elected US Senator in 1984 and has served in the senate longer than any democrat in Iowa's history.
Neither of these men has held real jobs, yet they like to spend their campaign time talking about their family farms, and their local connections (neither one lives in Iowa). They spend their time hob-nobbing with the Washington elite. Harkin maintains a residence in the Caribbean and both live in Baltimore, MD.
Iowa voters will no doubt re-elect both of these guys ad nauseum. Why the Iowa electorate feels that a couple of guys in their 80's who haven't lived here for years would be perfect people to go to Washington and take care of things is beyond me. I don't even like 80-year-olds driving.
If you want examples of why term limits are necessary, Iowans need look no farther than their own doorsteps.
Harkin and Grassley keep getting votes because of all the pork barrel they bring to our districts. As long as the money flows in, people will keep voting incumbent.
I really think that this money woulf flow in even without these two, though, because even new congressmen can sell their votes.
Two examples.
1. Senator Strom Thurmond represented South Carolina for fifty years from 1954-2003, when he virtually died in office at the age of 100. At that point he resided at Walter Reed hospital, only attending Senate votes when his would break a tie, being wheeled in in a wheelchair with an oxygen mask. His state kept re-electing him. At the end, he couldn't drive, and could barely read and write. But apparently, he was still qualified to be a US Senator.
2. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has served in the senate longer than any other person ever - 51 years, and is currently 83 years old. It looks like his state will continue to elect him until he is dead, and maybe even after that. Mr. Byrd generally only strays into the senate chamber these days when a tv appearance is guaranteed. He is visibly in poor health, and shakes badly. If he was your dad, you would put him in a home, not the senate.
It would be interesting to know what the median age is in S.Carolina and W.Virginia. Maybe old folks are just electing old folks or just a familiar name. I will guarantee that is what is happening in Iowa. What do you think, Rick, do we have that info?
The median age for the entire U.S. is 36.7 years.
Iowa ranks as the 13th oldest state, with a median age of 38.0.
West Virginia is the third oldest state, with a median age of 40.3.
South Carolina, by contrast, is right in the middle of the pack, ranking 25th, with a median age of 36.9.
These numbers courtesy of the US Census Bureau.
Hate to keep asking, but what do you suppose the median age is for registered voters? I'll stop after this.
2008 statistics:
Avg. age of all registered voters ... 43.7
Median age of all registered voters ... 38.4
Avg. age of people who actually voted in 2008 ... 51.2
I think it's commonly-held opinion that older voters are reluctant to vote for young candidates. Just like it's generally accepted that as people grow older, they usually don't see themselves as older, or at least don't consider themselves to be gradually losing ground on the intellectual curve.
They will use catch-phrases when describing themselves, like "you're only as old as you feel." I prefer to say "you're only as old as you act." Regardless of how you feel, if you go around writing checks at the supermarket, mailing letters instead of electronic communications, and talking about your ailments, you are probably old.
That also helps to explain why the Republican presidential candidate is almost always drawing social security checks.
I prefer to say "you're only as old as I think you are".
Not only that, Rick, but the average age of an Iowa caucus-goer is over 55 years old! That is an incredible number. That means that there are precincts in Iowa where a 60-year-old man could show up and be the youngest guy at the caucus. It is not hard to see why Grassley and Harkin keep getting elected.
You will never have younger, more imaginative candidates represent Iowa. That is, at least not until an Hispanic candidate runs 50 years from now.
Rick-
I'd be real interested in knowing the median age of peole that voted for Obama.
Not to hijack the conversation, but I see Branstad has already raised 1.5 million to run against Culver who has 2.1 million. Unbelievable!!
A couple of interesting demographics on the 2008 election that people really need to think about.
1. White voters voted for John McCain, by 55% - 48%
2. The ONLY age demographic that John McCain carried was the over-65 group.
That's right, only retired people (the same age as McCain) voted for him. That makes it clear that even though most white voters voted with him, all other racial groups voted heavily against him.
Obama wasn't elected only by young voters. people aged 40-65 also elected him. Republicans will continue to have poor showings until they nominate a younger, more progressive candidate.
The last time the Republican pres. candidate was more than 2 years younger than the Democrat was Thomas Dewey in 1944 & 1948.
The Rep. prefer an old warhorse that they know where he is coming from and won't screw up too badly.
The Democrats like a younger guy who would like to expand the federal gov't's role, if possible. The governmental experience between the 2 candidates usually isn't great bcz the Rebuplican spent more time in the private sector.
For 40+ years conservatives have outnumbered liberals in the U.S. roughly 37% to 19%. I believe Republicans need a principled communicater who leads.
Reagan had pragmatic moderates all around him who could navigate the treacherous waters of our Capitol.
It seems the Democratics enjoy a more spirited Presidential horse race, and decide it with the dignity of a fraternity. The Democrats want a new toy to play with.
The Republicans lack that stamina, want to get rid of all but the top 3 candidates, and want it over. It's more of a country club setting where they all have better things to do. They're sick of the same old process. "Isn't it old Prescott's turn this time? His son and grandson have already served?"
I think Diamond Dave is correct in his assessment. I really think that the Republican party is missing the boat by continually nominating old "warhorses". The demographic is changing and they are being left behind.
Women are already voting for younger, better-looking candidates. They always have. Minority groups such as Hispanics also seem to favor younger candidates. I have no problem with voting for somebody who represents your ideals, but it comes down to winning. If Republicans over 55 insist that no young person can represent them, they will continue to lose presidential elections.
If you are a Republican, just eliminate every candidate 65+ from the equation. Start there. Then start looking around for a good-looking well-spoken moderate with a conservative record. It would help if he had a short, recognizable name.
Then run toward the middle.
"The Republicans prefer an old warhorse that they know ... won't screw up too badly."
That sentence contains the problem with Republicans' thinking. Apparently, they are unwilling to hand the reins over to a younger person, because they think that young people screw up. Only old, retired folks are immune from screwing up. That is pure B.S.
The history of the presidency is littered with old warhorses screwing things up. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about kids here. By younger candidates, I mean 50-59 years old. They are no more prone to screwing up than 60-69 year olds. Old people have a tendency to think that they possess a vast storage of experience and knowledge that people even ten years younger do not. That is not always true. Sometimes they are just old.
I totally agree on bringing in the young guys. Let them have a crack at it. Do you honestly think they would screw things up any worse than they are now??
Is there a marked difference in the average age of a Democrat as opposed to that of a Republican? Just wondering.
Mike, thanks for the question. The answer might surprise you. Democrats outnumber Republicans in every age group. What you have to do is look at the age groups where they are the strongest to get an idea of where their strength lies.
Their greatest advantage is among voter under 30, and among baby- boomers in their late 40s and 50s. Republicans come closest to parity with Democrats among Generation Xers in their 30s and 40s, and among seniors. Young people also tend to describe themselves as Independents, and the number of Independents steadily drops as they age.
The number of people identifying themselves as Republicans shows a steady, gradual increase as they grow older. In contrast, the number of Democrats remains somewhat constant, regardless of age, hovering between 35 and 45%.
One could conclude that as people grow older, the Independents gradually fall into the Republican camp.
In the 1990's, congressional term limits were put on the ballot in 23 states. voters in every one of those states approved term limits by an average margin of 2-1.
Then, in 1995, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states could not impose term limits.
Like you point out, politicians simply do not know when to stop. Franklin D. Roosevelt singlehandedly is responsible for the 22nd amendment (limiting presidents to two terms), when death was the only thing that prevented him from becoming President for life.
Have you even stopped to digest any of these numbers? Let's start with the current average age of a U.S. Senator - 62! That's the average! That's right, your average senator is retired and no longer affected by most laws he/she passes. They are predominantly white, and Catholic.
The average member of the House of Representatives has served for nearly six terms! He/she has been elected six times in a row - must be doing a great job!
This ranks as the oldest set of chambers ever to serve.
Re: Franklin D. Roosevelt - "Death was the only thing that prevented him from becoming President for life."
Isn't it obvious that Mr. Roosevelt WAS president for life?
State of Oklahoma currently has a bill before its' legislatures to apply "states rights" and the 10th Amendment to the Federal gov't.
"Right now we pay our federal taxes directly to the IRS and the federal
government dangles that money like a carrot before the states to get the
states to do the bidding of the federal government. HB2810 is designed
to reverse that role. If HB2810 passes then we will all send our federal
taxes to the state government who will in turn pay them to the federal
government for all of us in the state. If the federal government should
do something that the state of Oklahoma believes they should not do
(think of all the unconstitutional measures of the federal government!)
then the state can delay or even withhold the funds.The state can then
dangle the carrot before our over reaching federal government instead of
the other way around. This is an important tool that can help along with
other measures to show our federal government that they are going too far.
This legislation is a part of the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance slate of States Rights Legislation.
Post a Comment