607
Bernie Sanders says President Biden will win in 2024 if he runs on a "strong progressive agenda" (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/politics@lemmy.world
222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the 2024 presidential race beginning to unfold, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he believes that President Joe Biden will again earn the Democratic nomination — and the president likely win reelection if he runs on a strong progressive campaign.

"I think at this moment ... we have got to bring the progressive community together to say, you know what, we're going to fight for a progressive agenda but we cannot have four more years of Donald Trump in the White House," Sanders said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

…

Sanders endorsed Mr. Biden in April. Sanders referenced several of those issues in underscoring what he believes is the importance of building "a strong progressive agenda" to win the presidency in 2024.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean sure, age and related health issues CAN be a part of the problem like with Mcconnell and Feinstein, but usually the out of touch policy positions are much worse than the age itself.

For example, I'd much rather have Bernie than Madison Cawthorn making any decisions on behalf of the people and the vast majority of millenials and gen z agree 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No no you're right, I'm sure there's not a strong correlation between being an octogenarian and being out of touch, those outliers prove it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Didn't anyone ever teach you that correlation ≠ causation?

    While the aforementioned health problems are a direct result of age, being out of touch isn't. If you do your due diligence as a politician, you can keep your finger on the pulse no matter how old you are, health permitting. Of the two people in my example, the octogenarian has political views and general mentality much more in line with the vast majority of people under 45 than the Gen Z fascist does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Right. Because you cherry-picked the examples, then you're using that to wave away proportions. I'm saying, expand the sample size and you'll see that in general having ancient farts in high offices should be the exception, not the norm. If a correlation is strong enough, the connecting middle is kind of irrelevant for the purposes of the lower standard of justifying a bias.

    Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that's extinguishing. He doesn't have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did.

    As voting citizens, we don't give enough chances to younger politicians, when honestly we should be demanding it of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    because you cherry picked the examples

    Nope, I picked those two to illustrate that, while geriatric politicians are a bad thing in general, there are exceptions. I've never seen any of the people advocating term/age limits mention exceptions and was arguing against an absolute ban based on age and nothing else.

    Maybe mandate some cognitive and policy knowledge tests every time someone, regardless of age, run for re-election. The senile out of touch ones from both parties would fail and so would younger idiots like Cawthorn, Boebert and Perjury Greene.

    Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that's extinguishing.

    Nah, that's just his greatest flaw from even before 2016 continuing: being so averse to playing dirty that he goes to the other extreme and lets his competition get away with anything as long as worse exist. He's like a neoliberal in that one aspect, always have been.

    He doesn't have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did

    Still not a lack of energy, he's just playing too nice with his allies who should be his lesser enemies. And younger Bernie didn't have much influence outside of Vermont and Washington since, this being pre-internet, the establishment decided which ideas got to most of the population. Like local public radio and tv enabled him to become one of the most influential people in the history of Vermont, the internet and the resulting ability to reach people without going through establishment tastemakers enabled him to build the (inter)national influence he always deserved.

    As voting citizens, we don't give enough chances to younger politicians

    I partly agree, partly disagree: on the one hand, I agree that there are far too many old and out of touch people deciding things, but on the other, there is such a thing as too inexperienced. A 25yo would be fine for local office, but I wouldn't trust someone THAT young to run a country. I'd say late 30s to mid 50s is probably the goldilocks zone, with exceptions to be made for exceptional individuals such as Bernie or AOC.

    honestly we should be demanding of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.

    That part I agree wholeheartedly with, no notes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent