He will be 40 years old in 2020 ... born in 1980

https://kennedy.house.gov/

Kennedy 2020 !!!

special right and duty to high-level "public service" when I was in elementary school and JFK was president. That hasn't changed.

Joe III has had everything basically handed to him, including Barney Frank's U.S. SENATE (!) seat as soon as he was legally old enough to hold it, which he won easily. His 3 years as a senator are now the longest job he's held in his life. His politics are okay, but he's still extremely untried and unknown. He's never had to be really smart or competent. Is he?

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to assume that our nation, with an electorate of 200 million people, has to have many better possibilities than just the handful who were accidentally born on home plate and never had to show they had what it takes to get to first base.

Btw, the age topic itself brought to mind Jack Weinberg, the Berkeley activist who in another century told a reporter his people "didn't trust anyone over 30." He's 77 now, and and being famous for that adolescent inanity has reportedly been irritating him going on a half century now.

Last edited Sat Nov 4, 2017, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

president...Why should Joe's talent be wasted because he comes from the Kennedy family? He is great on the issues....and the Kennedy's are beloved in Mass...just like other families in various states. No matter what Joe still had to win. Consider when Carolyn Kennedy ran for the New York Senate...she was a dismal candidate and soon out of the race. Most of our elected come from privileged families. Congress is a millionaires club.

as respectably as he if it were handed to you instead of him. Does that make you presidential material?

His whole 3 years in congress, btw, have been spent basically twiddling his thumbs as a newbie in a minority caucus. It would be unfair to expect him to have even a beginner's 3 years of experience or accomplishments under these circumstances. But maybe running him for president because he's now old enough to meet the age requirement is premature?

"Congress is a millionaires club" is to my mind a statement of acceptance of corruption of our institutions, not just a statement about corruption.

candidate based on his family connections...my great great Grandfather was a cousin of old Joe Kennedy (JFK's father) ,My maiden name was Kennedy so what? If I ran for something would I be part of some dynasty? I don't think so. Why not keep an open mind and see what happens? Other than wanting new candidates for the 2020 primary except Martin O'Malley-I don't care who the candidate is...I will vote for any Democrat...we should not exclude any viable Democratic candidate.

with the congress voters provide to undo the terrible damage the Republicans have done in all spheres of government, to strip power from the right-wing billionaires trying to take over our nation--because they have no intention of stopping, in the process to establish more equitable income distribution and restore general prosperity, and to somehow hopefully use this disastrous era as a catapult for advance. As FDR and his team did.

You think Joe III has "potential." So reelect him to the senate and see if he demonstrates it there.
We need a candidate with a proven record for competence who at least hints of a capacity for greatness.

Just think of the huge consequences of a failed Democratic presidency.

Kennedy. I would agree with you that we must choose wisely.

we required candidates to campaign with bags over their heads, and perhaps there might be some benefit to labeling them choices A, B and C also.

where you were talking midterms to chat there.

I didn't search all 69 posts you've made on your first 2 days as a member of DU, though (that's MIRT's responsibility), just your most recent.

The search did lead me to Ehrnst's cute sheep story that you enjoyed. Me too.

The only Kennedy I know about except for history channel...is Ted Kennedy...and as I said before. We need more like him.

(That's my name and I'm always correcting people on it)

n/t

you are somewhat correct that he replaced Barney Frank.but he was also a House of Rep. member.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, which would have been quite a trick. Obviously never did recover from that brain fart.

Nothing against Joe III personally, just concern that better, proven people could be pushed down at every level to promote him. That's no way to choose a president.

Speaking of,

I'm imagining all the other people agree who qualified for our own 2016 presidential ballot but were never presented as candidates--pushed aside in favor of a limited number chosen for power and electability, name recognition, appeal to various constituencies, and "other."

Who was the candidate we never got a chance to look at because Jim Webb was wanted to talk to conservative Democrats?

The one quashed because Sanders was chosen to draw in young and disaffected?

The one who was pushed aside to make room instead for O'Mally? What was his name? (They were all men.)

Surely at least one of the Unknown Candidates would have been better than Chafee. Did he have any qualification other than being a former Republican, then independent, then Democrat proof that someone at least made the move?

Hillary's the only one we know another candidate didn't get quashed for. A powerhouse appeal to mainstream, POC of all groups, and women, backed by literally hundreds of colleagues and power centers, and she apparently also raised the money from donors that paid for the whole damned thing.

Is this how we should be choosing our president?

Kennedy actually could have run for a different Congressional seat years before he did. Instead, he continued to his work in the district attorney's office. You might be surprised that his bio is better than you would suspect.

After college,

After graduating in 2003, Kennedy joined the Peace Corps; a fluent speaker of Spanish, he worked in the Puerto Plata province of the Dominican Republic from 2004 to 2006, helping local tour guides in the 27 Charcos reserve in the Río Damajagua Park. He reorganized the group with some outside backing, directing the guides to rebuild parts of the park and develop skills to make the operation more attractive to tourists.[3][5] "We basically created a union," said Kennedy, who reported that the group's efforts won higher wages for employees while improving revenue for the tour companies.[7] According to a press release, his other activities in the Peace Corps included "stints as an Anti-Poverty Consultant for the Office of the President of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and a Research Analyst for the United Nations Development Program."[8]

But separating those who'd like to join the Peace Corps from those who think that's for chumps, though a good basic cut, is only a first cut. And no points given for being able to afford to over those who wanted to but had to get right to work paying off their college loans.

I've actually read all this stuff before. Respectable enough for a man of his age, but surely short, short for someone talked about for president?

And I confess I specifically was not impressed with his leaving the prosecutor's office so quickly to run for office and start all over again at yet another new job. He'd hardly be the first politician to bunny-hop from job to job to quick-build his resume, it's standard technique for those with the means and connections to manage it, but he's not been long enough at anything to develop excellence.

So let's see how he does over the next few years as he settles down and develops some expertise in his job. If power transfers in 2018 (has to!), no doubt with the help of his family and friends he'll have plenty of chances to break out of the pack and show his stuff.

to Hillary Clinton as a legacy candidate.

I saw the many flaws in Clinton and here candidacy, but voted for her in the General Election.

And if he was VP, we would have a really good chance of holding the presidency for 16 years...going to take time to fix what the GOP broke.

It is a dynasty.

Not just “a dynasty” but THE dynasty when you ask anyone about American political dynasties.

Last edited Sat Nov 4, 2017, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

God we need more like him.

They are still considered a dynasty. As are the Adams.

Look up American political dynasties on Google. First names that pop up Roosevelt’s and Kennedys.

And techinqaly I am still a young person myself. The last of Generation X or the first of the Millenials depending on how you define the generations. First name I think of is Kennedy. Joe, jack, bobby, ted, jackie O, and many more. I can say almost all of my classmates would agree as would my younger brother and his classmates.

Where are you getting this information? Some poll?

Again, they are THE Dynasty. Just google it. Here, I will do it for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=American+political+dynasties

the snark. I want a candidate that can win and who is within the Democratic big tent in terms of policy and ideas. I don't have purity tests...and would not base my voting decisions on family connections which I view as stupid. Joe Kennedy would be a great candidate...and the fact his great uncle was elected President almost 60 years ago is meaningless to me... I admired Ted Kennedy...in his later years in the Senate...I always through JFK was overrated and that Johnson was most more effective historically. I will vote for whoever is the Democratic candidate... I think there are enough good candidates out there that we can nominate a great Democratic in 20, Sherrod Brown is great and could unite the party.

But the American people ARE tired of dynasty candidates and it undoubtedly hurt both dynasty candidates in 2016. There is no quicker way to lose than to ignore the will of the people.

And no snark was intended. I wanted to know if you had some data to support your statement. I like to back up my claims with proof to one degree or another. This is my data on the subject, of 22:



http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/14271_APRIL_NBC_WSJ_Poll.pdf

69% dont want another dynasty. While it probably won’t make or break a candidate, it could easily be the straw that gives Trump for more years. We can’t afford that!

of three of the brothers while serving America and the fourth was an inspirational U.S. Senator, noted for being a tireless advocate for the underrepresented citizens of America.
If that is what it means to be a "dynasty candidate", we could use some more of that.

And polling shows 69% of Americans don’t want dynasty canadite. If having a dynasty canadite gives us four more years of President Candy corn then I say we don’t need them!

We're supposed to be the party of vision. Legacies and reruns are one way to national recognition, I suppose, but we need that magic combination of freshness and experience the grabs mindshare but confounds the ratfuckers.

Seems like the age, family affiliation, sex, religion etc criteria are the least of things we should worry about.

How about how smart they are, do they have a track record of doing the right things? Are they able to connect with the masses?

All this other crap is a waste of time and a distraction.

crack down on medical cannabis in states where it has been legalized

I will not vote for him

90% of the country wants medical mj to be legal so dems don't need another, research candidate ( I think hc's views on mj are a big part of why trump "won&quot

Merely being youthful isn't the answer if they're going to deliver an identical electoral map to Clinton's.

lack of campaign resources spent on the supposed "blue wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (which all went for Trump, in the end), for instance, because those resources were focused elsewhere, on places like NC and Florida and Ohio (which Trump ALSO won, but if Clinton had taken the first three states, that wouldn't have mattered).

those states. With the margins as small as they were, that could well have made the difference.

Yes, there was voter suppression, but there was also a badly run campaign.

Hillary's team made a mistake. She DID campaign hard in Pennsylvania, but she didn't spend as much time in Wisconsin and Michigan as, in retrospect, it appears that she should.

She wasn't either arrogant or complacent. She was working hard campaigning in other states that appeared they might turn blue, such as Arizona.

Her team considered PA, MI and WI to be part of a "blue wall". They thought those states were guaranteed to go in the D column. They didn't. Calling it "arrogant complacency" is a simple descriptive.

I guess she didn't take a bus tour of those states right after the convention. I'm so sick of people parroting lies.

Or if she did, Wisconsin wasn't one of them. She didn't visit the state once after she lost the primary there to Sanders. But it was part of the "blue wall"! Literally, that was the winning strategy they had mapped out.

Wisc.is so gerrymandered, she did not stand a chance. Some precincts counted more votes for tRump than there were registered voters.

has nothing to do with presidential elections.

In senatorial and presidential elections, it's the total number of votes in a state that decides the outcome.

And hopefully they run on what they want to do and not on what a bad person the other guy is. That was shameful.

incumbent, republican, and that included Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania

Funny that some self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary went for the third party candidate.

Hillary lost by .3% in Wisconsin. Jill Stein received 1% of the vote. Similar results in those other swing states.

It is convenient to ignore the Comey interference. I was doing call banking all that week and weekend into those states. The damage Comey did was consequential, add that to those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting, and that did the trick.

Anyone who believed the bullshit that there was no difference between the republicans and Democrats, obviously were oblivious to the Supreme Court, the environment, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, etc. etc. etc.

itself in the shape we're in today without significant malfeasance on the part of the party establishment. For example, the big donors are in love with Kamala Harris - they think she's a female Barack Obama and she could very well be the nominee in 2020 - and she'll get completely blown out everywhere outside of the nation's major cities - we couldn't find a more emphatic way to cement our party's image as an urban/coastal party than by making such a nomination - and we just might do it.

Adam Schiff, 57. Kirsten Gillibrand, 50. Corey Booker, 48.

We don't need to skip over an entire generation in the zeal to get someone younger than Trump.

DT should have taught us by now that experience DOES matter.

Glad you mentioned him. He is a former prosecutor.

He has a lot of guts. He has been standing up to all the Repugs.

I'd love to see him run. And stick it to Trump.

I think there are a number of Dems who are just under the radar - hoping they will see the light when it's time.

I think the basic idea is that we shouldn't nominate anybody else from the Biden/Bernie era.

based on the examples given.

I think seaching for the mythical hero is like waiting for pie in the sky by and by.

3 steps need to be taken.

1. Acknowledge we are in an undeclared war with Strongman Putin's Russia which is aligned with Trump forces /Republican Party to destroy our democracy.

2. End the search for the Jesus/Savior/Sir Galahad; the mythical charismatic young hero who rides in to rescue us.

3. Build the party to fight the war.

this. This is our chance to stop the GOP for the rest of the term. It is huge. What do we have? We have so called allies like Move On primarying Tim Ryan in Ohio...and of course Our Revolution is busy screwing Democrats...Midterms are just as important as presidential years in terms of policy. Had we backed Pres. Obama who knows what would have been accomplished. Also, holding one or more branches of government stops the other side cold. Think about that. Get out and vote n the midterms, work for the candidates...tell our so called allies that if they continue to screw Democratic elected in the age of Trump...no more dollars for them. Democrats are still looking for a savior like Roosevelt. You see it in the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. The 'we need a hero' school of politics. But Roosevelt didn't do it alone...he needed a congress. We need to save ourselves because no one else is going to.

There's a huge tendency to leap on the latest name highlighted by the media. Almost no one knew who Kamala Harris was until that one hearing, then wow, Kamala for Prez! She'd still be herself and still be at least considering a possible run even if that had been a closed hearing, though.

I have no problem with "young" as in 40s or 50s. Of course. Who does except those in their 20s and 30s who imagine that's too old?

Bigotry against age alone is as stupid and deluded as any other, though, especially when it mindlessly disrespects and discards what in some older people are decades of priceless experience and understanding. An acting out of not knowing what it is to know something.

During the campaign I heard someone on a political show describe older people in Florida as just down there waiting to die. Only imagine that kind of shocking idiocy in the White House. At least older people have all spent many years being young and understand the needs and desires of younger generations as well as their own. They're in a far better position to understand those of yet older citizens also.

As long as we spend our time hashing over 2016, we will not be fully focused on 2020. Faux Snooze would love to make the conversation between now and then about Hillary, and sucking the oxygen out of the room for the fresh faces that we need to have competing for the nomination in the very near future.

I'm sure there were a lot of potential Trump voters who didn't bother because they believed the media narrative that Hillary would win. You can be sure that he'll gin them up next time around.

But, on the other hand, I would be afraid of losing him in the Senate.

Last edited Sat Nov 4, 2017, 06:15 AM - Edit history (1)

We need someone who can win. We don't need to be ageist about it.

Especially the charisma part. Sadly, we live in a country where half the population can't name the Vice President, but they can tell you every contestant on "Dancing With the Stars." It shouldn't be that way, but that's where we are.

Wanting someone in office who hasn't put the stapler in the refrigerator or who doesn't have to write lists to remember things is not a bad thing. Most of us older people are fully functional, but few of us are 100%. I wish we had a million Obamas waiting in the wings. We have plenty of qualified and exceptional people under the age of 70. Why not give them a chance?

The current fool in the Oval Office is a prime example of why your "ageism" claim doesn't make sense.

Would you be happy with a 100-year-old candidate? I don't think so. But the span from age 50 to age 100 involves a gradual loss of a variety of functions. There is no magic age that can serve as a cutoff, and we all have our opinions on what it might be. I would say about 65 (for president).

But to say that age doesn't matter is naive and/or fits a pre-set narrative.

I just can't imagine someone in their 70s keeping up with a high pressure, fast paced job. Just thinking about it exhausts me.

I agree with your other comment, too, about 65 being a good time to call it quits as a candidate. Now I'm off to read for a little while and take a nap. LOL.

but he is young and good on the issues.

Lol. He really tries to be better. He gets how important it is. He is really smart, the words he uses are overall excellent, yet his deliver is poor. You can sense the effort as he tries to be charismatic. After the last primary I said he just needs to work on delivery and he could be huge. I really wanted him to head up the DNC.

Win in 2018 and then worry about 2020.

HOW do we know our votes will be counted in the 2018 mid-terms? As we know, the GOP is working on bigger and better forms of voter-suppression, which includes expanding into BLUE states. And, if that ruling comes down in 2018 from the Supreme Court stating that gerrymandering in Wisconsin is a-okay, we're REALLY in trouble all across this country. For sure Wisconsin, will be dead RED for the unforeseeable future, and states like Michigan and Pennsylvania won't be too far behind if redrawn up like thuglicans want them to be, and if those things weren't bad ENOUGH ....

Our voting apparatus is still QUITE broken, not much has improved on that front, and the ruskies are still meddling--they've never stopped. putin and his gang WILL have improved on their meddling/interference by the Fall of 2018 and for damn sure by 2020 if they go unchecked/unpunished, and I don't think they'll be punished, not by their boy Dotard J. tRumputin, the big, fat, racist, fake, crazy, tReasonous putin-lover in the White House who continues to say that the putin et al didn't meddle/interfere into our elections.

Pretty sure his Dept. of Homeland Security won't "really" care if the ruskies are interfering in our elections AGAIN, and will turn a blind eye to it. But then again, how do we know we'll be able to vote in 2018 and 2020? I know it's extreme to say that but tRumputin's insane and when Mueller gets TOO close to him, I could see him firing Mueller AND starting a war with North Korea so that the investigation of his fat ass gets reduced into nothing.

Instead of limiting our choices and focusing on attributes that shouldn't fucking matter at all to enlightened people, we focus on the things that do matter?

The age of the candidate shouldn't matter.. young, middle aged, old. Why the hell are we even using that as a measuring stick??

Male/Female? Again, this shouldn't matter to us.

Race of the candidate? Should not be relevant.

Religious background (excepting if that candidate is basing policy and positions on that religion)? Shouldn't matter.

Sure it would be great to break another glass ceiling! WONDERFUL. But lets find candidates that can meet the REAL measurements we should be using below, then look at what we have that will break another ceiling.

Here's the ONLY things I will give a shit about:
1. Does the candidate have a strong likelihood of getting the Rumpublican out of the oval office?? Any candidate that doesn't meet this metric is not going to be my choice in the primary. Shouldn't be OUR choice in the primary.
2. Of those who meets #1, who has the most realistic approach to implementing liberal and progressive policies, and the capability/savvy to be the most effective at it.

If we focus on anything else, we're ridiculously limiting our own options, and frankly being rumpublican style stupid.

is probably not our best strategy. 2018 should be our focus.

Young, wise, reasonable, experienced woman who would make an exceptional POTUS.

STOP FIGHTING THE LAST INTERNECINE WARS

ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

Trump is dismantling the government and moving toward a dictatorship and people here are arguing about the last Democratic primary and its aftermath.

CLUE: That. Is. In. The. Past.

MOVE ON, already.

There are more members of congress born in the 30s than the 80s (According to the constitution, people born in 1991 were eligible to run for congress in 2016, 1993 in 2018).

Joe Biden was first elected at 29. We need the next generation Joe Biden.

candidate who is dynamic and powerful. We, and even GOPers, pick these VP candidates that won't clash with Prez.


In retrospect, we'd probably been better off if Clinton had gone with Sanders or Warren for VP. I liked Kaine. But he didn't add a lot, he was just a safe nomination.

The younger the candidate, the more likely that they meet that criteria

You need to get your shit together and unite...

That's what its all about. That magical quality. Clinton and Obama? Charisma. JFK and Robert? Charisma. Sad to say, that's why people voted for tRump.

I like Schiff and some of the others, but I don't see any standouts in making great speeches or rallying people.

The dems need to get some younger faces out there on TV, so they have name/face recognition come 2020.

I noticed yesterday that this happened to me too.

Second, I don't plan on supporting Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden. But they have every right to run and I don't believe that their age should disqualify them.

The potential candidates who I most like are Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, who will be 69 in 2020, and Tom Steyer who will be 63.

With young vibrant candidates.
Almost always.
Sex and race don't matter.

Right now crushing on Al Franken.

It's blatant age discrimination. It's tantamount to an employer saying, "Sorry, we're not hiring any old fogies. We need some fresh blood in this company."

Disgusting.

Even though it's against the Tos.

Interventionist or pro-regime change Dems can't win a national election no matter how old, young, exciting, charismatic or novel they are.

We need someone who will go up to the Rethugs who are screaming "We gotta send our military to fight in (insert foreign civil war that we have nothing to do with here)! We just GOTTA!" stare them straight in the eye and go "Nope. Let's fix problems here."

I guarantee you that if Clinton were a non-interventionist like Bernie, she would have won. Even if she did not adopt ANYTHING else in his platform. You cannot sell more interventionism to young people.

If age is at the top of your criteria then we are more screwed than you will admit.

How about we get someone who understands how government works, is ethical, cares about people, knows how to connect with the masses etc..

AGE doesn't qualify someone whether they are young or old.

State house
Congressman
Governor
Progressive
Liberal voting record
Pro-environment

He would kick Trump's ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Inslee

Doesn't have to be Inslee, but he typifies the qualities that would make a good candidate in 2020.