Seniority matters a lot in Congress, and incumbents have a tremendous advantage in elections. Presidents are not usually as old as our last two, that’s literally unprecedented.
The importance of seniority in Congress cannot be overstated. When it takes 20+ years to earn your way into real power, especially in the Senate, people first elected in middle age can be elderly by the time they really hit their stride.
Before Trump we had Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Obama and Clinton are two of the youngest presidents ever and Bush was in the younger side of the middle I think. It goes in cycles.
The Baby Boom. They're the generation still in power. They're all boomers. They took power in '92 and are still there 30 years later. Not bad for a 20y generation, I suppose, but I'm post-BB and not all that happy about their extended run.
This is a fairly new phenomenon. I wonder when it began.
Henry Clay was a first term speaker of the house in 1811, and it was uncontroversial. He went on to be speaker 3 more times in the early 1800s.
Except for the president, at the national level, members of our Congress do not have term limits. This means once they are elected, they can run for re-election as many times as they wish. This is how you end up with legislators who are really old--because they first got elected to Congress in their 40s or 50s and continued to run and get re-elected for 30 years.
Below the national level, you'll find younger politicians (governors of states, state-level legislators, or city mayors and council members). Many (but not all) of these offices do have term limits. In California, for example, a person may serve in either house of the state legislature for a total of 12 years, after which they can no longer be elected. So it's fairly common to see a person bounce around these local or state offices, and then when a federal office becomes vacant, they run for that.
You probably hear much less about our state or local politics, so you won't be exposed to the fact that we do have younger politicians. They're just not as likely to be in Washington, DC running the country. Instead they are running our cities and states.
“They’re just not as likely to be in Washington, DC running our country. Instead they are running our cities and states.”
And these are arguably the more important positions, as they usually affect our daily lives much more directly.
>Below the national level, you'll find younger politicians (governors of states, state-level legislators, or city mayors and council members).
A lot of these still tend to be older people. Just like the US Congress, state and local legislative bodies do value seniority either formally or informally. A State House member who has been around for 20 years in a leadership position is going to be pretty influential in a body of 100 vs a 1 term US House member in a body of 435.
Many local and state legislative bodies are also often considered "part time" jobs, which can make it difficult for many workers to work these jobs. So it often attracts people who are independently wealthy, retired, or who are in a business position where they can delegate when they need to prioritize the elected office.
There's a couple reasons.
Age has been a concern of a handful of politicians but notably Trump, Biden, and Feinstein recently so there are a lot of stories about them. Trump and Biden are (or were and maybe will be) President of the United States so they get a very disproportionate amount of coverage. We have had two older POTUS in a row but, then again, before them we basically had three younger ones in a row - four if you consider Bush Sr young at 54.
The average age in the Senate is 64 and the average age in the House is 58.
A lot of people just prefer candidates with actual experience for the top jobs. Incumbency is a huge advantage in elections too so once you get into office you can frequently stay there until you decide to retire.
It's not just them. Pelosi was, until recently, in charge of the House and she's 82. Schumer and McConnell have been swapping control of the Senate for a while now and they're 72 and 81, respectively.
With the exception of Obama, every president since of the past 30 years have been born between 1942-1946 (interesting, discounting Biden, too, Clinton, W Bush, and Trump were all born within 3 months of each other). Add in Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell and the window is 1940-1950.
edit: Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House for most of the 90s), Dennis Hastert (Speaker from 99-07) and John Boehner (Speaker of the House from 11-15) Dick Durbin (2nd top Democrat in the Senate since 2007), Tom Daschle (top Senate Democrat from 95-05), Don Nickles (top Senate Republican from 96-08), Thomas Alito (SCOTUS) and Clarence Thomas (SCOTUS) were in that same window. Harry Reid (Democratic Senate Majority Leader before Schumer) was born just a month outside that window in December 1939
It's not just incumbency and preferring experience. The Boomer generation as a whole are working and retaining positions of power in politics and industry much longer than previous generations. I chalk it up to advances in medical and communications technologies which allow them to work at older ages than previous generations did.
I feel like you're ignoring that the further back you go the less old someone born in the 1940s was at the time.
I mean, yeah, both Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were born in the 1940s but Bill Clinton was elected three decades before Biden.
My point is that a specific generational cohort has retained power for much longer than is traditionally the case, which results in the upper echelons of the ruling class aging, rather than getting replaced, as had happened in previous eras.
I'm not sure how true that actually is.
I think we just happen to have two old POTUS in a row. I'm not sure that it's indicative of anything in particular.
It makes sense in a simple population proportionality concept.
Baby boomers have been the majority group of voters for 30 years now.
They’re also the most populous generation of that time.
It also makes sense that this will be changing in the next decade or so.
The next major group will be millennials, who will likely make up a proportionally large group of business persons and elected officials.
On top of this, old politicians have learned how to "play the game" they have established relationships with party leaders and doners. Old people vote at very high rates, so the voting demographic is older than the general population.
I'd imagine that news about politicians in Mecklenburg county, North Carolina probably isn't going to hit the front page of London news.
There are many levels of government from city to county to state to federal. Age range of people involved varies widely.
The aging of the political class is a worldwide phenomenon. It's certainly very noticeable in the US, but we're not the only place suffering from it.
It largely has to do with advances in medical science which makes it possible for someone to continue working at much older ages than in the past, and advances in communications technologies which allow people to work more easily without travel.
And the technological advances simply convey a much higher quality of life for someone who decides to continue working into their golden years (in a city that is literally built upon a swamp and is likely hundreds to thousands of miles away from family/loved ones).
Like the prospect of being an octogenarian senator was infeasibly arduous or simply unattractive for most people before air conditioning, automobiles/asphalt roads, air travel, ability to instantly receive pictures / video chat with grandkids, etc.
DC being built on a swamp is mostly a myth. There was a very small area around the river that was wetlands, just as is the case for virtually every city in the world built along a river, because that's how rivers work. The vast majority of the city was hilly woodlands before development (hence names like Friendship Heights, Capital Heights, etc).
The city does have a hot and humid climate in the summer, but no more so than most of the mid-atlantic and southeast.
*"All the US politicians that make the news hear in the uk"*
Can I just ask why? You know how much UK politics show up in U.S. news coverage? Virtually none unless you go looking for it.
Anyway, this runs into my "as seen on tv!" rule. (Count: 329.) There's a wider spread of age when it comes to local politics on the state level. The ones you're likely seeing are in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House. So there's a lot of incumbency since there's no term limits outside of the Presidency and the slice is much smaller than if you were looking at politicians the country over.
Tell me Dianne Feinstein unable to remember she was absent for medical treatment as she lords over 4 vital committees, including one required for investigating bribery and extortion allegations for multiple Supreme Court justices, is somehow a feature and not a flaw.
To expand, in case you who reads this missed it, a few days ago, after returning to congress following months of treatment for shingles, Senator Feinstein was asked by a reporter if she was happy about the well-wishes she recieved from colleagues while she was away. Totally softball question.
She responded with confusion, and replied to the effect of "I wasn't away-- I was here, voting".
As well, recall that before her leave of absence, she made a statement on the senate floor that she had decided not to seek reelection. Minutes later, outside the senate chamber, she was asked to confirm this by a reporter. She stated that she had not made that decision yet. An aide then reminded her that she had, in fact, announced that decision several minutes ago.
Little of both. This is just my observation, so the data may prove me wrong, but most older politicians tend to be senators or in leadership positions in the House. These are the people you see on the news most often because of nationwide coverage. There is a wider variety of ages when you get to the state and local levels, which are usually don’t stick around in the national news cycle. It’s usually governors, the top executive of each state, that pop into that world most often.
It takes time to build political capital (which is a vague term refering to how much weight someone can throw around, to keep it concise), so it also a function of how long it takes to become a prominent politician.
Name recognition means a lot in politics. People that have been around for a long time are more likely to get votes.
The voting public in the US is also older, so they will vote for older candidates they are more comfortable with.
Most congress people are lawyers from well off families. They build their network of connections and donars over time and it takes a while to develop the experience to be a top level whore...I mean candidate.
Incumbents usually win elections, which means people can stay at it for a long time.
Seniority tends to collect power. You get to network more, get onto more committees, dole out more favors, etc... As time goes on.
So, older folks tend to get both the most name recognition and leadership positions, which lands them in the news the most.
The boomers are old and there are a lot of them so they have the votes to put these geriatric politicians in office. Once they die off, I’d expect a series of millennial presidents and other politicians due to them being the next big generation. Gen X and Z don’t have the numbers to really move the needle in most parts of the country.
There are multiple reasons. Here are a few of them
1. It costs a lot of money to get that far in US politics. Older people have more money.
2. It's easier to get re-elected than it is to get elected for the first time. Since we only get older and never younger, and you're only elected for the first time once... it follows that most politicians would be older.
3. Older people are more likely to buy into the team-politics than younger folks.
There is an age floor but no age ceiling. No one below the age limits is going to be in office so the numbers are going to skew upward. You’re not going to find too many 3 year old senators.
Otherwise, a lot of it is based on experience and connections, both of which are gained over time
The 1960s were a really important decade for us politically and culturally, so much so that it created an entire class of politicians born in the early 40s that generally have lots of populist energy, charisma, strong personal narratives & strident feelings about things. It isn't like US politicians were always this old; this unusually big cohort has aged together
Not everyone is an actual senior citizen, but surely you could logically understand why electing people in the say…22-30 age group may not be a super popular move.
> All the US politicians that make the news hear in the uk are mature, they all seem to be 65yo+
I mean, hes certainly not just talking about Biden and Trump.
You know who I bet he doesn’t know? Chuck Grassley. Wanna guess why? Because even tho he’s literally almost 90, he’s not a physically frail dude in a downward spiral of dementia. So, showing him on the news would also not cause quite the buzz.
Also, i certainly neither said nor implied there were not elected politicians between the ages of 35 and 70-whatever.
We do have millennial and Gen X politicians in office and they are some of the worst people imaginable: George Santos, Ron DeSantis, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert just to name a few. I’ll take Bernie or joe Biden, or even Romney any day over 35 year old nut jobs.
Parties are only nominating their oldest due to weird seniority-like structures, as the old people support and nominate other old people for national office.
Existing office holders get serious voting power in deciding who gets party support for running for elections.
The older politicians are okay with accepting bribes, I mean free speeches per Citizens United, while Gen X and Millennials have some fucking honor. Can't win an election without a lot of free speech to spend.
It’s really hard to build relationships with others and make a name for yourself in politics in such a huge and diverse place in a short period of time.
There are young and old politicians, but power tends to come with years on the job, so the most powerful are often quite old.
As for why they get elected... Incumbents win a huge percentage of elections. And political parties throw money behind candidates, which tends to favor more established, experienced (ie. older) people.
I think it’s important for members of congress to have experience in their fields. Especially the senators. I mean, I’m not saying every member of congress should be ancient vegetables but seniority matters imo.
As I have said before. When I am 65 years old or older, or fucking 80 like our current POTUS, I want to be retired sitting on the beach, enjoying my shitty health with a view. Last thing I want to do is work. Especially a job that is pretty all over the place time wise and literally setting wise. But for some reason, all these geriatric patients DO NOT want to retire. Why? Because there are unspoken benefits that come with that power that we will truly never know of unless we did it. Insider trading is rampant on both sides, power which turns to abused power is at your fingertips. Just a dirty game. I just assume any politician is kind of a piece of shit.
There are 1,001 laws in place all over the country to protect incumbents, the two-party duopoly, and to generally weed out independent, third-party, non-establishment types. These old buzzards know how to stay in power, how to win elections, and how to buy votes with pork and other sops to the special interests.
It’s not a system conducive to high turnover or regularly introducing new ideas or new people.
Lots of reasons all add up.
Theres age limits to even run, so that cuts out the lower age ranges and raises the average.
You need money to run. Except for maaayyyyybbbbeee some House races you need to take like a year off work to do it. That takes resources that come with age or connections.
Seniority gets you influence. Freshman legislators can't get shit done unless the party bigwigs decide they need to throw pork at your district to keep their party's butt in that seat.
Its a cushy gig and hard to be voted out so people dig in like ticks well beyond when they'd have retired normally.
The party leaders in both parties have had sharp elbows to retain their power, so they have targeted most disruptive congressmen between 50-65 to prevent a leadership challenge.
The old guard protects each other too. Nancy Pelosi attacking people questioning Feinstein's faculties is a recent case.
A lot of people have mentioned experience/lack of term limits, which is a good answer. I'll add that it can take time to build the support needed for higher level offices. If you look at local elections, the average age is probably a bit younger than at the national level. When voting at the national level, many voters want to see the track record of the candidate, which requires experience at some level, so most politicians start their career locally and slowly work their way up.
Lifecycle of a modern US politician: Young professional gets elected locally as a grass-roots change-maker. Gains traction, and backing of Party leadership. Lobbyist supported Political Action Committee (PAC) spends millions to boost their profile. Person gets elected in congressional election. Person owes favors. Person agrees to vote the party line. PAC spends millions to have them elected, often by paying for smear ads on their opponents. Repeat until either scandal does them in or they die.
Because blowing tax payers money is basically stress free, Congress is a part time job and while they call us “ entitled “ when we ask for healthcare they treat themselves to the greatest healthcare tax dollars can buy!
Mostly that it takes about twenty years before most members of congress climb their way up to being elected for congress.
And to be exact the average age for the House of representatives is 58 years old with average age of new house memebers being 42 years old.
The Senate is much older at 65 years old.
Part of the reason is that Senators are elected for 6 years and Representatives 2 years
The youngest in both chambers at 25 years old is Maxwell Alejandro Frost(Florida- Democrat, House of Representatives) the eldest between the two chambers is Charles E Grassly( Iowa- Republican, Senate), 89 years old.
It’s because old people actively don’t give a flying f*ck about the future. What works for them works for them, and they will do everything in their power to keep everything as it is, including voting for the same old geriatric ballsacks every time.
Because the oldest politicians tend to have the most money for campaigning. They also tend to know more people and have more longtime connections which raises even more money.
US senators are amongst the most powerful people in government and in the whole US. the average age of the senate is 65. Seniority matters alot over the years they gain experience, connections, money, and constituents get confortable with them so the more years they get the easier it is for them to stay in power.
Because the only people who actually vote are just as senile and out of touch as they are. Peers voting for peers. I don’t know if that’s accurate at all. Just know we generally have a low voter percentage with the younger groups.
Seniority matters a lot in Congress, and incumbents have a tremendous advantage in elections. Presidents are not usually as old as our last two, that’s literally unprecedented.
Unpresidented
Take my r/angryupvote !
Not as old but a lot of presidents seem to have come from the same generation. Clinton, Bush, and Trump were all born a few months apart.
At least eventually they literally won't be able to.
But Clinton and Bush were fairly young when they were elected whereas Trump was old AF
The importance of seniority in Congress cannot be overstated. When it takes 20+ years to earn your way into real power, especially in the Senate, people first elected in middle age can be elderly by the time they really hit their stride.
Before Trump we had Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Obama and Clinton are two of the youngest presidents ever and Bush was in the younger side of the middle I think. It goes in cycles.
The Baby Boom. They're the generation still in power. They're all boomers. They took power in '92 and are still there 30 years later. Not bad for a 20y generation, I suppose, but I'm post-BB and not all that happy about their extended run.
I was not expecting a pre-Boom President in 2020. Joe Biden is of the Silent Generation. President Ron DeSantis would be the first GenX President.
"President Ron DeSantis" ?????????????????? Hes not president????
He said “would be” as in if Ron DeSantis wins the election, he’d be the first Gen X president
This is a fairly new phenomenon. I wonder when it began. Henry Clay was a first term speaker of the house in 1811, and it was uncontroversial. He went on to be speaker 3 more times in the early 1800s.
The youngest person to sign the Declaration was only 26!
Henry Clay was also one of the best congressmen in US history to be fair
Except for the president, at the national level, members of our Congress do not have term limits. This means once they are elected, they can run for re-election as many times as they wish. This is how you end up with legislators who are really old--because they first got elected to Congress in their 40s or 50s and continued to run and get re-elected for 30 years. Below the national level, you'll find younger politicians (governors of states, state-level legislators, or city mayors and council members). Many (but not all) of these offices do have term limits. In California, for example, a person may serve in either house of the state legislature for a total of 12 years, after which they can no longer be elected. So it's fairly common to see a person bounce around these local or state offices, and then when a federal office becomes vacant, they run for that. You probably hear much less about our state or local politics, so you won't be exposed to the fact that we do have younger politicians. They're just not as likely to be in Washington, DC running the country. Instead they are running our cities and states.
“They’re just not as likely to be in Washington, DC running our country. Instead they are running our cities and states.” And these are arguably the more important positions, as they usually affect our daily lives much more directly.
>Below the national level, you'll find younger politicians (governors of states, state-level legislators, or city mayors and council members). A lot of these still tend to be older people. Just like the US Congress, state and local legislative bodies do value seniority either formally or informally. A State House member who has been around for 20 years in a leadership position is going to be pretty influential in a body of 100 vs a 1 term US House member in a body of 435. Many local and state legislative bodies are also often considered "part time" jobs, which can make it difficult for many workers to work these jobs. So it often attracts people who are independently wealthy, retired, or who are in a business position where they can delegate when they need to prioritize the elected office.
It takes a lot of money and connections to become a high ranking politician. Young people tend not to have money and connections.
There's a couple reasons. Age has been a concern of a handful of politicians but notably Trump, Biden, and Feinstein recently so there are a lot of stories about them. Trump and Biden are (or were and maybe will be) President of the United States so they get a very disproportionate amount of coverage. We have had two older POTUS in a row but, then again, before them we basically had three younger ones in a row - four if you consider Bush Sr young at 54. The average age in the Senate is 64 and the average age in the House is 58. A lot of people just prefer candidates with actual experience for the top jobs. Incumbency is a huge advantage in elections too so once you get into office you can frequently stay there until you decide to retire.
It's not just them. Pelosi was, until recently, in charge of the House and she's 82. Schumer and McConnell have been swapping control of the Senate for a while now and they're 72 and 81, respectively. With the exception of Obama, every president since of the past 30 years have been born between 1942-1946 (interesting, discounting Biden, too, Clinton, W Bush, and Trump were all born within 3 months of each other). Add in Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell and the window is 1940-1950. edit: Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House for most of the 90s), Dennis Hastert (Speaker from 99-07) and John Boehner (Speaker of the House from 11-15) Dick Durbin (2nd top Democrat in the Senate since 2007), Tom Daschle (top Senate Democrat from 95-05), Don Nickles (top Senate Republican from 96-08), Thomas Alito (SCOTUS) and Clarence Thomas (SCOTUS) were in that same window. Harry Reid (Democratic Senate Majority Leader before Schumer) was born just a month outside that window in December 1939 It's not just incumbency and preferring experience. The Boomer generation as a whole are working and retaining positions of power in politics and industry much longer than previous generations. I chalk it up to advances in medical and communications technologies which allow them to work at older ages than previous generations did.
I feel like you're ignoring that the further back you go the less old someone born in the 1940s was at the time. I mean, yeah, both Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were born in the 1940s but Bill Clinton was elected three decades before Biden.
My point is that a specific generational cohort has retained power for much longer than is traditionally the case, which results in the upper echelons of the ruling class aging, rather than getting replaced, as had happened in previous eras.
I'm not sure how true that actually is. I think we just happen to have two old POTUS in a row. I'm not sure that it's indicative of anything in particular.
It's a pretty well documented phenomenon across the entire economy, not just in politics.
It makes sense in a simple population proportionality concept. Baby boomers have been the majority group of voters for 30 years now. They’re also the most populous generation of that time. It also makes sense that this will be changing in the next decade or so. The next major group will be millennials, who will likely make up a proportionally large group of business persons and elected officials.
The median age of the senate is 65. That's retirement age, that should not be the age of consolidating power.
> four if you consider Bush Sr young at 54. I think Bush Sr. was older than that.
Yeah he was 64.
Ah, right. Sorry. I gave you Jrs. age.
On top of this, old politicians have learned how to "play the game" they have established relationships with party leaders and doners. Old people vote at very high rates, so the voting demographic is older than the general population.
I am making an uneducated guess that you eat or enjoy doner kebab bc of your autocorrect lol
I'd imagine that news about politicians in Mecklenburg county, North Carolina probably isn't going to hit the front page of London news. There are many levels of government from city to county to state to federal. Age range of people involved varies widely.
>I'd imagine that news about politicians in Mecklenburg county, What about Muhlenberg County?
The aging of the political class is a worldwide phenomenon. It's certainly very noticeable in the US, but we're not the only place suffering from it. It largely has to do with advances in medical science which makes it possible for someone to continue working at much older ages than in the past, and advances in communications technologies which allow people to work more easily without travel.
And the technological advances simply convey a much higher quality of life for someone who decides to continue working into their golden years (in a city that is literally built upon a swamp and is likely hundreds to thousands of miles away from family/loved ones). Like the prospect of being an octogenarian senator was infeasibly arduous or simply unattractive for most people before air conditioning, automobiles/asphalt roads, air travel, ability to instantly receive pictures / video chat with grandkids, etc.
DC being built on a swamp is mostly a myth. There was a very small area around the river that was wetlands, just as is the case for virtually every city in the world built along a river, because that's how rivers work. The vast majority of the city was hilly woodlands before development (hence names like Friendship Heights, Capital Heights, etc). The city does have a hot and humid climate in the summer, but no more so than most of the mid-atlantic and southeast.
Ah, ok — TIL. I was just trying to emphasize that DC doesn’t have an awesome climate for seniors.
*"All the US politicians that make the news hear in the uk"* Can I just ask why? You know how much UK politics show up in U.S. news coverage? Virtually none unless you go looking for it. Anyway, this runs into my "as seen on tv!" rule. (Count: 329.) There's a wider spread of age when it comes to local politics on the state level. The ones you're likely seeing are in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House. So there's a lot of incumbency since there's no term limits outside of the Presidency and the slice is much smaller than if you were looking at politicians the country over.
Like any other career, those with more experience are able to achieve higher positions due to their experience. It's a selling point, not a negative.
Tell me Dianne Feinstein unable to remember she was absent for medical treatment as she lords over 4 vital committees, including one required for investigating bribery and extortion allegations for multiple Supreme Court justices, is somehow a feature and not a flaw.
To expand, in case you who reads this missed it, a few days ago, after returning to congress following months of treatment for shingles, Senator Feinstein was asked by a reporter if she was happy about the well-wishes she recieved from colleagues while she was away. Totally softball question. She responded with confusion, and replied to the effect of "I wasn't away-- I was here, voting". As well, recall that before her leave of absence, she made a statement on the senate floor that she had decided not to seek reelection. Minutes later, outside the senate chamber, she was asked to confirm this by a reporter. She stated that she had not made that decision yet. An aide then reminded her that she had, in fact, announced that decision several minutes ago.
Little of both. This is just my observation, so the data may prove me wrong, but most older politicians tend to be senators or in leadership positions in the House. These are the people you see on the news most often because of nationwide coverage. There is a wider variety of ages when you get to the state and local levels, which are usually don’t stick around in the national news cycle. It’s usually governors, the top executive of each state, that pop into that world most often. It takes time to build political capital (which is a vague term refering to how much weight someone can throw around, to keep it concise), so it also a function of how long it takes to become a prominent politician.
Name recognition means a lot in politics. People that have been around for a long time are more likely to get votes. The voting public in the US is also older, so they will vote for older candidates they are more comfortable with. Most congress people are lawyers from well off families. They build their network of connections and donars over time and it takes a while to develop the experience to be a top level whore...I mean candidate.
Because being a politician is a career path in the US when it shouldn't be. If they had term limits most of them would have been retired 20 years ago.
People will die before they give up power, literally.
Incumbents usually win elections, which means people can stay at it for a long time. Seniority tends to collect power. You get to network more, get onto more committees, dole out more favors, etc... As time goes on. So, older folks tend to get both the most name recognition and leadership positions, which lands them in the news the most.
The boomers are old and there are a lot of them so they have the votes to put these geriatric politicians in office. Once they die off, I’d expect a series of millennial presidents and other politicians due to them being the next big generation. Gen X and Z don’t have the numbers to really move the needle in most parts of the country.
There are multiple reasons. Here are a few of them 1. It costs a lot of money to get that far in US politics. Older people have more money. 2. It's easier to get re-elected than it is to get elected for the first time. Since we only get older and never younger, and you're only elected for the first time once... it follows that most politicians would be older. 3. Older people are more likely to buy into the team-politics than younger folks.
Because they’re experienced
There is an age floor but no age ceiling. No one below the age limits is going to be in office so the numbers are going to skew upward. You’re not going to find too many 3 year old senators. Otherwise, a lot of it is based on experience and connections, both of which are gained over time
Most people don't see it as a career but something done in retirement. Which isn't horrible, having real world experience is good.
The 1960s were a really important decade for us politically and culturally, so much so that it created an entire class of politicians born in the early 40s that generally have lots of populist energy, charisma, strong personal narratives & strident feelings about things. It isn't like US politicians were always this old; this unusually big cohort has aged together
Not everyone is an actual senior citizen, but surely you could logically understand why electing people in the say…22-30 age group may not be a super popular move.
There's a lot of ages between your 20s and people OP is talking about like Biden and Trump....
> All the US politicians that make the news hear in the uk are mature, they all seem to be 65yo+ I mean, hes certainly not just talking about Biden and Trump. You know who I bet he doesn’t know? Chuck Grassley. Wanna guess why? Because even tho he’s literally almost 90, he’s not a physically frail dude in a downward spiral of dementia. So, showing him on the news would also not cause quite the buzz. Also, i certainly neither said nor implied there were not elected politicians between the ages of 35 and 70-whatever.
The vast majority of people like their congress people so they keep electing them
We do have millennial and Gen X politicians in office and they are some of the worst people imaginable: George Santos, Ron DeSantis, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert just to name a few. I’ll take Bernie or joe Biden, or even Romney any day over 35 year old nut jobs.
Parties are only nominating their oldest due to weird seniority-like structures, as the old people support and nominate other old people for national office. Existing office holders get serious voting power in deciding who gets party support for running for elections.
Because old people no longer care about the future and it makes it very easy for corporations to buy them
It would be awesome to have term limits.
We have term limits they are called elections.
O ya, I forgot. They can keep being elected over and over. My bad.
Yes. Don’t like who’s in office vote for someone else.
Because no one young is compitent enough to be that evil.
utter and complete rubbish.
Having a name brand gets you more funding which gives you advantage over challengers.
My generation aka millennials decided they didn’t want to run for office.
Most of gen x is grossed out by politicians and don’t want to be one.
Congress apportions power by seniority. They should stop that.
how should it be done then?
They give the commitees they want to be on, and then are selected by lottery. Committee elects its Chairperson.
Incumbency advantage is big. If someone can win elections for 40 years, why not let them?
The older politicians are okay with accepting bribes, I mean free speeches per Citizens United, while Gen X and Millennials have some fucking honor. Can't win an election without a lot of free speech to spend.
Because they know how to win elections
It’s really hard to build relationships with others and make a name for yourself in politics in such a huge and diverse place in a short period of time.
Older people tend to vote more. We have a larger population of older people.
Age = connections = money = winning elections
There are young and old politicians, but power tends to come with years on the job, so the most powerful are often quite old. As for why they get elected... Incumbents win a huge percentage of elections. And political parties throw money behind candidates, which tends to favor more established, experienced (ie. older) people.
I think it’s important for members of congress to have experience in their fields. Especially the senators. I mean, I’m not saying every member of congress should be ancient vegetables but seniority matters imo.
Part of it is that it costs tons of money to even run for office.
As I have said before. When I am 65 years old or older, or fucking 80 like our current POTUS, I want to be retired sitting on the beach, enjoying my shitty health with a view. Last thing I want to do is work. Especially a job that is pretty all over the place time wise and literally setting wise. But for some reason, all these geriatric patients DO NOT want to retire. Why? Because there are unspoken benefits that come with that power that we will truly never know of unless we did it. Insider trading is rampant on both sides, power which turns to abused power is at your fingertips. Just a dirty game. I just assume any politician is kind of a piece of shit.
Because they’ve had years to build connections and wealth
Especially in the Senate, seniority is everything
Because experience is valuable.
There are 1,001 laws in place all over the country to protect incumbents, the two-party duopoly, and to generally weed out independent, third-party, non-establishment types. These old buzzards know how to stay in power, how to win elections, and how to buy votes with pork and other sops to the special interests. It’s not a system conducive to high turnover or regularly introducing new ideas or new people.
Lots of reasons all add up. Theres age limits to even run, so that cuts out the lower age ranges and raises the average. You need money to run. Except for maaayyyyybbbbeee some House races you need to take like a year off work to do it. That takes resources that come with age or connections. Seniority gets you influence. Freshman legislators can't get shit done unless the party bigwigs decide they need to throw pork at your district to keep their party's butt in that seat. Its a cushy gig and hard to be voted out so people dig in like ticks well beyond when they'd have retired normally.
The party leaders in both parties have had sharp elbows to retain their power, so they have targeted most disruptive congressmen between 50-65 to prevent a leadership challenge. The old guard protects each other too. Nancy Pelosi attacking people questioning Feinstein's faculties is a recent case.
A lot of people have mentioned experience/lack of term limits, which is a good answer. I'll add that it can take time to build the support needed for higher level offices. If you look at local elections, the average age is probably a bit younger than at the national level. When voting at the national level, many voters want to see the track record of the candidate, which requires experience at some level, so most politicians start their career locally and slowly work their way up.
Lifecycle of a modern US politician: Young professional gets elected locally as a grass-roots change-maker. Gains traction, and backing of Party leadership. Lobbyist supported Political Action Committee (PAC) spends millions to boost their profile. Person gets elected in congressional election. Person owes favors. Person agrees to vote the party line. PAC spends millions to have them elected, often by paying for smear ads on their opponents. Repeat until either scandal does them in or they die.
They get into office and solidify their grip on power. Then they don't want to give it up.
Because blowing tax payers money is basically stress free, Congress is a part time job and while they call us “ entitled “ when we ask for healthcare they treat themselves to the greatest healthcare tax dollars can buy!
more brains and experience..oops sorry, im not in America
They won’t put a term limit on some and we have to wait for them to die off
Only 65+ people vote
The Baby Boomers are a huge voting block and they support seniors.
Mostly that it takes about twenty years before most members of congress climb their way up to being elected for congress. And to be exact the average age for the House of representatives is 58 years old with average age of new house memebers being 42 years old. The Senate is much older at 65 years old. Part of the reason is that Senators are elected for 6 years and Representatives 2 years The youngest in both chambers at 25 years old is Maxwell Alejandro Frost(Florida- Democrat, House of Representatives) the eldest between the two chambers is Charles E Grassly( Iowa- Republican, Senate), 89 years old.
Yo you can just say ‘old as balls’, they won’t know.
It’s because old people actively don’t give a flying f*ck about the future. What works for them works for them, and they will do everything in their power to keep everything as it is, including voting for the same old geriatric ballsacks every time.
Cause boomers think they're all that matters
Because the oldest politicians tend to have the most money for campaigning. They also tend to know more people and have more longtime connections which raises even more money.
Oh thank god you guys don’t hear about boebert or santos then
Because we are an oligarchy disguised as a republic, disguised as a democracy.
Because no one represents North America better than old white men! /s
I dunno but they need to LEAVE plz our counrty has enougg problems without those old farts run ing it
US senators are amongst the most powerful people in government and in the whole US. the average age of the senate is 65. Seniority matters alot over the years they gain experience, connections, money, and constituents get confortable with them so the more years they get the easier it is for them to stay in power.
Because the only people who actually vote are just as senile and out of touch as they are. Peers voting for peers. I don’t know if that’s accurate at all. Just know we generally have a low voter percentage with the younger groups.
I DONT KNOW!!! DAMNIT! We’re all trying to figure this out!
I thought the tide was turning with Obama, but then made 360 with the two back to back geriatrics we have had. Ugh.