Posted on 04/17/2015 8:27:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why are the Democrats running for president so old? Blame the Clintons.
There are five Democrats who have either declared or are thinking about running for president. Three Joe Biden, Bernard Sanders, and Jim Webb will be over 70 years old on Inauguration Day 2017. Frontrunner Hillary Clinton will be nine months short of 70. Only Martin O'Malley, who will turn 54 a couple of days before the 2017 swearing-in, has not reached retirement age already.
In 2008, Democrats had a 47 year-old candidate who mesmerized the party and ran away with the votes of Americans aged 18 to 29. Republicans, meanwhile, ran a 72 year-old man whose reputation was based on heroism in a war 40 years earlier. Youth won.
This time the situation is reversed. The average age of the Republican field is far below the Democrats, with every candidate younger than Clinton. The most senior is Jeb Bush, who will be 64 on Inauguration Day. Scott Walker will be 49; Marco Rubio will be 45; Ted Cruz, 46; Rand Paul, 54; Chris Christie, 54; Mike Huckabee, 61; Bobby Jindal, 45. Although Bush is in the older range, they're all in the career sweet spot to win the White House.
What accounts for the Democrats' dramatic change from the party of youth to the party of age?
"It's the snuffing out of young talent by the strength and size and sheer velocity of the inevitable nominee," says a well-connected Democratic strategist. "The Clintons took all the air out of the collective Democratic room. There are a lot of people who would be running who are much younger, but they've got their future in front of them, and they don't want the Clintons to ruin it, in this campaign or after this campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Two things, the Democrat Party is populated by both old, cold, evil, ego-driven and unattractive young people that are stale, boring, and could care less about the USA and “all” its people.....they care only about themselves and their political power, and, their beloved darling, POTUS Obama is destroying not only the USA...but....he actually is destroying the entire Democrat Party. Why? 2010, a political diaster for the Democrat Party, 2014, a political devastation for the Democrat Party....coming in 2016, with Clinton heading the Democrat ticket, a political wipeout for the Democrat Party!!! Talk about self-inflicted wounds!!! Hillary Clinton for POTUS??? Democrats are certainly not the sharpest knives in the drawer!!!
There are a couple more reasons not mentioned (related to each other):
The success of the tea party at the local and state levels has kept would be prominent Rat candidates off the field.
All the Blue Dog type Democrats recruited by Rahmbo to run in swing districts in the 90’s have been wiped off the slate in the past few elections. All that’s left are the old dinosaurs in safe blue districts who have held office for decades.
It’s not so much they are old as they are old self interested bitter control freaks who know better than anyone else. Not to mention, their only qualifications is, they have spent a life time working in the government!
Obama wasn’t even in the boy scouts and he only worked a very short time in the private sector.
Most of them could not function outside the bubble that is DC and/or the world of a lifelong politician.
Someone like Hillary despises ordinary people. They are foreign to her.
Yet, she knows she needs them to get elected. Democrats in general despise ordinary people.
To a Democrat/rino politician the most worthless person is a honest hard working person, with a modest income, who isn’t dependent on the government.
Otherwise, when they stand next to a “ordinary person”, for a photo op, for them it is like standing next to a mannequin or a space alien.
You are a vote bot.
You are from another dimension. The nether world of hard working American loving people who actually believe in something.
From your map.... just take California as an example...
If you look at the California map, it would be colored red mostly in terms of LAND AREA, unfortunately the map does not account for the fact that the small areas that are blue (San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles ) account for MOST of the population.
The red portion is sparsely populated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.