295
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

I understand why Lee is so incensed that Newsom isn't putting her in the seat (which would basically guarantee her winning in 2024), but honestly why is she running for a six year Senate term in her late seventies?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She wants to be the next Diane Feinstein.

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Nancy’s running for re-election as well. These old fogies just won’t step down.

Major props to Mitt for enjoying the later years of his life.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's American brain rot. We devote our lives to our jobs to the exclusion of everything else; family, friends, hobbies, personal projects, etc. If other jobs were as easy and fulfilling as being a Senator no one would retire.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago

No. They’re just selfish boomers who won’t let other generations have a seat at the table. Judy like housing.

[-] LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm more willing to forgive members of the house running despite their old age than I am senators.

Representatives only serve two years, so they're making a shorter commitment. It's substantially easier for someone to think they can keep doing something for another two years than it is for them to think they can do it for another six years. Especially on health matters. But also, individual representatives are simply just less important. In our current political environment, an individual senator leaving office is going to be a huge disruption for any balance of power that's less than 54-46, with another critical point reached at the 60-40 balance. In the house it won't matter for any caucus that's ahead by ~5+ seats. Even in today's razor close house, it was elected as 222-213 seats — a nine seat gap.

There's a decent number of older representatives out there. I wouldn't have minded Lee sticking around there for a bit longer. The only real issue with older representatives is that by staying in office they block the pipeline for new blood and building a bench for future offices. Running for senate in her late 70s is ridiculous though, especially for a first term.

For Pelosi specifically, I'd put it at 50-50 odds that she retires shortly after the 2024 election. If it wasn't for her personal feud with Hoyer I'd put it at near-certain. When she decides to retire, I expect she'll stick around for one last campaign solely because it will improve her ability to fundraise for the DCCC. She's a team player through and through.

[-] Nahvi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

While I agree in the lesser of two evils kind of way, meaning its better than they are in the House rather than Senate or President, I still think it is pretty shameful. If they just can't let go of politics it is time to go back home to city and state legislative bodies.

Still, it is wonderful to read an actually well-stated view point in this post. Seems that most of the thread has devolved to name calling and verbal diarrhea.

Have an upvote for some quality content!

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

Because these people are addicted to power

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It can also be simple egotistical narcissism, not that that's any better.

I did not know she was in her 70s 😳

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah see that's why I think ages of candidates should be listed on the ballot.

[-] offbyone@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

The irony is that it very well could have been a disadvantage for her to get picked. The incumbent advantage isn't really a thing for people appointed to the seat, and she'd be stuck doing Senate things for the next year instead of campaigning.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
295 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3912 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS