The Iowa Caucuses results demonstrate a major problem that Hillary Clinton faces–the age issue.
A vast majority of young voters, those under 45, but even more so those under 29, supported Bernie Sanders, the oldest candidate ever to seek the nomination of a major political party.
Even John McCain (age 72)and Bob Dole (age 73) were not the same age at the time of the election campaign as Bernie Sanders.
Even Ronald Reagan (age 73) was “younger” when seeking reelection in 1984!
How is it that young voters, who flocked to Barack Obama, age 47 in 2008, now love Bernie Sanders, age 75 by the time of the election?
What is it about Hillary Clinton age 69) that makes young Democratic voters dislike her that much, when young voters back in 1992 liked her husband, Bill Clinton, age 46?
This is a serious issue, as it looks more likely that Hillary, the likely Democratic nominee, will face a much younger Republican candidate in Ted Cruz, age 45, or more likely, Marco Rubio, also 45 but five months younger than Cruz. It means that the age difference would be almost 24 years.
The argument that either Cruz or Rubio are not “old” enough or experienced enough to be President is an argument that will not work, as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and particularly Barack Obama, were accused of the same “weakness”, but all became President.
To have the Democratic nominee, either Hillary or Bernie (six years older) as the “old” candidate, against a young Republican such as Cruz or Rubio, is unprecedented in American history.
A difference of 24 years is not the all time difference, as John McCain was 25 years older than Barack Obama in 2008; Bob Dole was 23 years older than Bill Clinton in 1996; and George H. W. Bush was 22 years older than Bill Clinton in 1992, but in each case the Democrat was the younger nominee.
But if it was Bernie Sanders against Cruz or Rubio, the difference would be nearly 30 years!
This time, it will be the opposite, with the Democrat much younger than the Republican, and one has to wonder how it might affect the election results, particularly with younger voters in the Democratic Party gravitating to Bernie instead of Hillary, and possibly younger voters in general going for Cruz or Rubio due to youthfulness!
I think policy ideas are why Bernie Sanders carried 17–29 and 30–44 voters in the Iowa Democratic caucus. That it was Sanders, not Clinton, whose ideas connected more deeply with those two younger voting-age groups.
With regard for the general election, I have not dismissed the Republican nomination possibly going to Donald Trump.
Many Democrats I know are torn between Hillary and Bernie. As the following Washington Post article points out, most Democrats I know share Hillary’s view that gradual reform is the most practical way forward. But most also agree with Bernie that even moderately progressive steps will be stymied if money’s influence is left unchecked, if progressives do not find new ways of organizing and mobilizing, and if so many white working-class voters continue to support Republicans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-theory-of-change-to-believe-in/2016/02/03/c2939c16-caa9-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
Both have good solid approaches to our problems and the Democrats are studying the proposals before committing to one candidate.
The Republicans can’t stop laughing at their clowns long enough to pick one.
In last night’s debate, Bernie Sanders doggedly pursued his one big idea about reforming American politics, while Hillary Clinton detailed her many proposals for change. Bernie also has only one lame foreign policy (non)argument: Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Foreign policy is his weakness. He simply has little interest in or knowlege of international relations, national security, etc. Not good. Why I’m not jumping on the Bernie train.
I’d like to see a debate like the one described: http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/02/id-like-to-see-different-kind-of-debate.html
Foormer Republican writes, “Bernie also has only one lame foreign policy (non)argument: Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.”
It’s not lame.
As Bernie Sanders noted, about the difference between who has more foreign policy experience, it counts even more to be accurate. (He was.)
@D – It’s lame because he has only one (non)argument on foreign policy. As Pragmatic said, that’s his weakness
Exactly as Pragmatic and Former Republican have said. When he was asked about North Korea, Russia, and Iran, he quickly proved he was out of his depth.
Former Republican writes, “@D – It’s lame because he [Bernie Sanders] has only one (non)argument on foreign policy. As Pragmatic said, that’s his weakness”
It’s not weak when consider the base of the Democratic Party. That vote to go to war in Iraq was a key reason Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama.
From what I’ve learned on this blog: (http://www.thepeoplesview.net/), and also on this blog: (http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/), the base of the Democratic party is largely African Americans and Latinos and less liberal than Bernie.
From what I’ve learned on this blog: (www.thepeoplesview.net/), and also on this blog: (immasmartypants.blogspot.com/), the base of the Democratic party is largely African Americans and Latinos and less liberal than Bernie.
Obama had a broader appeal than Bernie does.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/2/bernie-sanders-is-no-barack-obama-and-iowa-proved-it
This points out how I feel about the debate. I prefer the “fox knowing many things” over the “hedgehog knowing one thing”.
immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/02/democratic-debate-knowing-many-things.html
Excellent article in defense of moderates.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/4/in-defense-of-moderates
I’m very much in agreement with this Washington Post blog critique about Bernie. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/05/sanders-cant-just-be-the-president-of-income-inequality/
I agree with what that blog says too. The Iraq invasion should be an important event in the next president’s thinking about foreign policy but it should not be the only one.
@Rational Lefty – That blog post sums up what I’ve been pointing out about why his Iraq (non)argument is considered lame.
@Southern Liberal – Your first post in this discussion nails it perfectly for me, Former Republican, Pragmatic, Rational Lefty, and Princess Leia. Both have qualities that we all like about them, making it very hard to decide.
Southern Liberal,
I will read that linked article. (I hadn’t done so previously. Thank you for the link.)
I saw another link, from that article (as I was initially looking on 02.07.2016 @ est. 06:30 p.m. ET) in which Maryland congresswoman Donna Edwards says that Democrats need to be pro-active in challenging Republicans on abortion.
Now, I am thinking Ronald would not appreciate responses from anyone using foul language here. So, anyone reading this can go ahead and use his imagination to what words I really want to use.
I am pro-choice. I support abortion for women who make that choice. And I have never bought into any argument from a pro-life person. So, here we are in 2016, and the Republicans have been getting the shift on the overall narrative regarding where the national support is on this issue. Is it any wonder this current Democratic Party, apparently divided lately by those who prefer Hillary Clinton and those who prefer Bernie Sanders, have been overestimated in their collective intelligence with regard for policies and direction (not just for the country but in this damn political party)?
Southern Liberal
2 days ago
I’d like to see a debate like the one described: http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/02/id-like-to-see-different-kind-of-debate.html
———————————
Me, Rustbelt, Former Republican, Rational Lefty, and Pragmatic are in agreement about that.
Considering how important this election is, Democrats need to be united, not divided. That’s why I don’t like Hillary and Bernie sparring over the progressive label.
I agree, Pragmatic Progressive!
Here’s the article D mentioned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/donna-edwards-democrats-need-to-challenge-republicans-on-abortion/2016/01/21/38c25160-c06f-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html
I quite agree Ms. Edwards that we should fight the Republican lies about abortion.
I don’t get why D is upset. Most Democrats support womens rights and will fight for that when the issue arises.
The road to progress is never easy and there will always be obstacles and setbacks that we have to face and overcome.
Southern Liberal
2 days ago
I’d like to see a debate like the one described: http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/02/id-like-to-see-different-kind-of-debate.html
—————————————
Here’s a follow-up to that:
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/02/a-much-better-way-for-hillary-and.html
@Southern Liberal – Here’s a follow-up to that wish for a different kind of debate.
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/02/a-much-better-way-for-hillary-and.html