Why is the Dem caucus so old?

[ProgressiveModerate]

If you go to wiki and sort the list of sitting US reps by age the top of the list is almost entirely Democrats, mainly from ultra safe D seats who have never really faced competitive GEs. There are fewer of these on the R side though, which honestly surprises me a bit considering Rs are usually considered the party of older folks while Dems are the party of younger folks.

Why do you think this is? What does it say about our politics?

[GoldenMainer]

Credit where credit is due, Republicans have done a nice job of passing on the torch and diversifying their caucus while ineffective dinosaurs cling to power in the Democratic party. It's not solely the fault of the dinosaurs though. A portion of Democratic primary voters are all too eager to lower their standards, defend them, and vote for them.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Look the Rs have the oldest party than D's McConnell is no spring chicken, Pelosi is TL Jeffries is the next D Leader

Hoveven, Cornyn, Grassley are all over 80 and Rs had Reagan and Bush H and Trump Biden is the last of the DKC we will see Harris, or Newsom or Ryan if he wins his S in 28, hypocritical for you to say D's have old leaders and Rs have the oldest member of Congress Grassley, Wicker and Mcconnell

[LabourJersey]

The reason why leadership is so old is because the Democratic politicians who are in their 50s and 60s were badly hurt in the midterm losses in 2010 and 2014. And the ones that remained are frankly not all that impressive or made dumb decisions (Joe Crowley not campaigning at all in 2018 is a perfect example).

Also most of the middle-aged Democratic members were elected in the Clinton era, and their brand of moderation isn't very popular these days. Quite a few of them have adapted for certain, but not all of them did, or they represented areas/states that have gotten more conservative.

The Republicans have been better elevating late Boomer/Gen X generational leadership in their members and in the house. That generation is visibly absent in the Democratic ranks.

[Mr. Smith]

Dems have a more seniority based system, so sticking around matters more.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Another big part of it is that Democrats are more loyal to party than ideology. Republicans are more loyal to conservatism, or God, or Trump than they are the GOP. There's a lot more institutional faith in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

Kevin McCarthy is an afterthought. McConnell is appreciated, but not adored. Nobody cared about Boehner or Scalise or whoever else in leadership. Even Paul Ryan didn't have much of a personality cult around him.

But Pelosi? Democrats love Pelosi. There's a smaller personality around Clyburn too, but it took me a while to remember who the GOP whip was. It doesn't matter that they're ineffective now - it's that Pelosi was in 2008 or Clyburn Saved Biden.

Another part of it is that the Squad views Pelosi as the lesser of two evils. Leadership probably wishes the Squad would sit down and shut up, but none more than Hakeem Jeffries, Pelosi's successor. Where the others privately grumble at brunch, Jeffries is much more hostile to them. From commissioning and releasing anonymous polls bashing them to continuing a feud against Pelosi's wishes, Jeffries has shown a pattern of disunity. Curiously, his incumbent protection PAC has yet to support Rashida Tlaib or Cori Bush in their primary races.

The Squad's support of Pelosi is out of convenience. Where the relationship with the gerontocrats is strained but workable, Jeffries is openly opposed and hostile to them.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Credit where credit is due, Republicans have done a nice job of passing on the torch and diversifying their caucus while ineffective dinosaurs cling to power in the Democratic party. It's not solely the fault of the dinosaurs though. A portion of Democratic primary voters are all too eager to lower their standards, defend them, and vote for them.

Pelosi is an incredibly effective Speaker.  If the Biden and the Senate had gotten through all the legislation she’s passed in the House, this would be seen as the most successful and transformational administration since the New Deal.  She’s not responsible for the dysfunction in the other branches of government.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Credit where credit is due, Republicans have done a nice job of passing on the torch and diversifying their caucus while ineffective dinosaurs cling to power in the Democratic party. It's not solely the fault of the dinosaurs though. A portion of Democratic primary voters are all too eager to lower their standards, defend them, and vote for them.

Pelosi is an incredibly effective Speaker.  If the Biden and the Senate had gotten through all the legislation she’s passed in the House, this would be seen as the most successful and transformational administration since the New Deal.  She’s not responsible for the dysfunction in the other branches of government.

She's an effective speaker but not the most effective communicator to the American public imo. In a term like this where the House was never going to be the bottleneck I'd rather have someone else who's a bit more charismatic but if the House was the bottleneck I'd have her any day.

[Orser67]

A big factor is that congressional Republicans place a three-term limit on committee and subcommittee chairs/ranking members and on some party leaders (e.g. Cornyn was term-limited as the #2 Senate Republican a few years ago). I think this is especially a factor in the House, where there's a massive difference in power between being a committee chair and "just another Representative".

More generally, Republicans tend to be more in favor of term limits (and many just generally believe that holding public office shouldn't be a lifelong career). While I can think of a few Republicans who have made empty promises (e.g. Ron Johnson promised to serve only two terms), some do hold themselves to self-imposed term limits.

[Senator Incitatus]

Dems have a more seniority based system, so sticking around matters more.

This is 80% of the reason.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Another big part of it is that Democrats are more loyal to party than ideology. Republicans are more loyal to conservatism, or God, or Trump than they are the GOP. There's a lot more institutional faith in the Democratic Party than the GOP.

Kevin McCarthy is an afterthought. McConnell is appreciated, but not adored. Nobody cared about Boehner or Scalise or whoever else in leadership. Even Paul Ryan didn't have much of a personality cult around him.

But Pelosi? Democrats love Pelosi. There's a smaller personality around Clyburn too, but it took me a while to remember who the GOP whip was. It doesn't matter that they're ineffective now - it's that Pelosi was in 2008 or Clyburn Saved Biden.

Another part of it is that the Squad views Pelosi as the lesser of two evils. Leadership probably wishes the Squad would sit down and shut up, but none more than Hakeem Jeffries, Pelosi's successor. Where the others privately grumble at brunch, Jeffries is much more hostile to them. From commissioning and releasing anonymous polls bashing them to continuing a feud against Pelosi's wishes, Jeffries has shown a pattern of disunity. Curiously, his incumbent protection PAC has yet to support Rashida Tlaib or Cori Bush in their primary races.

The Squad's support of Pelosi is out of convenience. Where the relationship with the gerontocrats is strained but workable, Jeffries is openly opposed and hostile to them.

A few things:

1) Pelosi is an effective speaker, but she’s never been terribly popular.  People forget, but she’s faced revolts many times from across the ideological spectrum and had to fight pretty hard to remain leader of the House Democratic Caucus after the 2018 midterms.*

2) I don’t think it is a done deal that Jeffries replaces Pelosi (although Clyburn will likely back him and even if he just gets 2/3 or 3/4 of the CBC, that’s a really strong base, especially given that the CBC probably won’t take much of a hit in 2022).  Hoyer will probably make a run as well and he’ll get support from a number of the non-CBC ConservaDems, but never really be a serious contender.  Apparently, Adam Schiff is quietly gearing up to run as well whenever Pelosi calls it quits.  Schiff is an extremely close ally of Pelosi’s and he would not be doing that unless he at least had her unofficial backing (although Pelosi obviously can’t publicly back anyone in the raise to succeed her and I wonder if he could consolidate progressives if he made it to the final round against Jeffries).  I’m sure we’ll see a candidate from the progressive wing as well.

3) Clyburn doesn’t have a personality cult, not even a small one.  He’s one of the most powerful AA politician in South Carolina which means anyone who wants to run for President someday has to avoid making an enemy of him.  That’s where his influence has come from.  

4) When given the choice between siding with progressives and siding with the Gottheimer/Schrader crowd, Pelosi generally chooses the former regarding policy matters albeit sometimes after a bit of grumbling.  Schumer sides with progressives even more often (to the point that every now and then you’ll see one or two Democratic Senators anonymously quoted criticizing him for it in articles) and with far less grumbling (I think he’s genuinely come around on *some* issues as opposed to just doing so out of convenience).  

*In the end, the progressives were persuaded that Pelosi was far more progressive than any of the likely alternatives (most notably, Steny Hoyer and Hakeem Jeffries) while ConservaDems like Gottheimer and Schrader assumed she’d be a roadblock against the progressive wing’s priorities, so she was able to survive by playing everyone against each other.

[Beet]

A big factor is that congressional Republicans place a three-term limit on committee and subcommittee chairs/ranking members and on some party leaders (e.g. Cornyn was term-limited as the #2 Senate Republican a few years ago). I think this is especially a factor in the House, where there's a massive difference in power between being a committee chair and "just another Representative".

More generally, Republicans tend to be more in favor of term limits (and many just generally believe that holding public office shouldn't be a lifelong career). While I can think of a few Republicans who have made empty promises (e.g. Ron Johnson promised to serve only two terms), some do hold themselves to self-imposed term limits.

Yeah, I used to be against term limits for House but am now for them. How did term limits become a conservative position? It makes no sense as the Democrats usually support measures to increase equality, and they should hold that up within their own caucus.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Also, can someone explain to me when Jefferies is seen by many as this rising star soon to be the leader of the Democratic Party? I don't find him particularly charismatic or impressive, nor is he the best speaker imo. Ngl he comes off as somewhat cold

Tbh though, I can't really think of many Dems who i think would be a good speaker post-Pelosi who would ever have a serious shot. Most of the more charismatic members are either too progressive to be speaker or are too new to the caucus.

[SevenEleven]

Credit where credit is due, Republicans have done a nice job of passing on the torch and diversifying their caucus while ineffective dinosaurs cling to power in the Democratic party. It's not solely the fault of the dinosaurs though. A portion of Democratic primary voters are all too eager to lower their standards, defend them, and vote for them.

Pelosi is an incredibly effective Speaker.  If the Biden and the Senate had gotten through all the legislation she’s passed in the House, this would be seen as the most successful and transformational administration since the New Deal.  She’s not responsible for the dysfunction in the other branches of government.

She's an effective speaker but not the most effective communicator to the American public imo. In a term like this where the House was never going to be the bottleneck I'd rather have someone else who's a bit more charismatic but if the House was the bottleneck I'd have her any day.

Pelosi is the reason the House isn't a bottleneck. You realize there are a number of so-called progressives chomping at the bit to torpedo any legislation that isn't 100% what they want a la The Freedom Caucus, right?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Also, can someone explain to me when Jefferies is seen by many as this rising star soon to be the leader of the Democratic Party? I don't find him particularly charismatic or impressive, nor is he the best speaker imo. Ngl he comes off as somewhat cold

Tbh though, I can't really think of many Dems who i think would be a good speaker post-Pelosi who would ever have a serious shot. Most of the more charismatic members are either too progressive to be speaker or are too new to the caucus.

I worry about it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy when it doesn’t have to happen.  The big advantage he has over other potential candidates is that the CBC gives him a really strong base right off the bat and he’s very much their choice.  I don’t particularly like Jeffries either and he engaged in some really ugly Islamophobic Muslim-baiting early in his career that should be disqualifying (but no one seems to ever bring up for some reason).

Ironic side note: When Jeffries first ran, he was the insurgent progressive primary challenger to a corporate shill incumbent who ultimately scared the guy into not seeking re-election.  It’s funny how much things can change in a decade…

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Credit where credit is due, Republicans have done a nice job of passing on the torch and diversifying their caucus while ineffective dinosaurs cling to power in the Democratic party. It's not solely the fault of the dinosaurs though. A portion of Democratic primary voters are all too eager to lower their standards, defend them, and vote for them.

Pelosi is an incredibly effective Speaker.  If the Biden and the Senate had gotten through all the legislation she’s passed in the House, this would be seen as the most successful and transformational administration since the New Deal.  She’s not responsible for the dysfunction in the other branches of government.

She's an effective speaker but not the most effective communicator to the American public imo. In a term like this where the House was never going to be the bottleneck I'd rather have someone else who's a bit more charismatic but if the House was the bottleneck I'd have her any day.

Pelosi is the reason the House isn't a bottleneck. You realize there are a number of so-called progressives chomping at the bit to torpedo any legislation that isn't 100% what they want a la The Freedom Caucus, right?

No, that would be Gottheimer and his band of corporate-owned thugs who torpedo the agenda.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jerry-nadler-and-carolyn-maloney-really-hate-each-other/ar-AA10g0rv

This is WWE at it's finest.  It's as if Ric Flair and Vicky Guerrero were screaming at each other.  Jerry Nadler (the West Siders) vs. Carolyn Maloney (the East Sider, transplanted from Greensboro, NC) having a cat fight for the nomination after they're shoved into the same district.  Totally awesome!

In truth, this primary shows the problem with the Democratic Party; two ancient and unattractive liberals arguing with each other.  Whatever the merits of the young challenger, Suraj Patel, he'd look a LOT better on TV, but these dinosaurs can't quit.  Nadler has spent the last 4 years being upstaged by Adam Schiff and Maloney is an overrated lightweight.  It wasn't always so; if this primary were being held in 1972, it would be Ed Koch for the East Siders vs. William Fitts Ryan (a TREMENDOUS liberal hero who was dying of cancer) and Bella Abzug, a truly iconic feminist.  (I met Abzug in 1976 and she specifically said, in response to my question, that she would vote to repeal Taft-Hartley; she's one of my faves, and nothing like her abrasive public image was.)  Those people were substantive liberals.  Maloney and Nadler were two of the least substantive liberals ever (although Nadler, IMO, has been more substantive, from a liberal point of view).

How can a party credibly run America when all of its leaders are past their prime, and by a lot?  There's a difference between the wisdom of age and staying too long at the fair.  How do the individuals in the Democratic Congressional leadership strike you?  What are the implications for the Democratic Party in the long term?

[GoTfan]

You support an attempted self-coup.

[Nyvin]

Republicans also have term limits for committee chair positions, Democrats don't.   That might play into it as well.