Do the Democrats Have an Age Problem?
When Jerry Nadler announced his retirement this week, he opted to directly address a question that’s been roiling the Democratic Party since Joe Biden’s withering debate performance last year: How old is too old to run for office?
The 78-year-old congressmember cited his age as a factor in his departure plans from a safe seat in New York City. And in doing so, he earned praise from some of the party’s younger agitators — though based on interviews, it’ll take more than a handful of elderly lawmakers like Nadler heeding their calls to step aside to repair the intra-party rift.
As it is, the vast majority of Democrats who are 70 or older are publicly running for another House term. Against that backdrop, a trend of acknowledging the party’s age problem is beginning to emerge, even as other senior members of the party are likely to stay put.
Four House Democrats, including Nadler, and four Senate Democrats over the age of 65 have said this year that they are stepping down from Congress. A fifth House Democrat said he would retire from his home district if Texas’s proposed redistricting maps survive legal challenges. Democrats believe even more departures could be coming with a government shutdown deadline looming and lawmakers evaluating their futures after returning from their August recess.
“These retirements are a great example of maturity from these leaders to make the difficult decision for them of knowing even after you’ve served somewhere for decades that it’s time for somebody else to lead,” Leaders We Deserve co-founder David Hogg said in an interview, specifically responding to Nadler’s news.
But 25-year-old Hogg, who has become a leading voice for generational change within his party, also pledged to continue his plan to financially support some candidates who challenge older incumbent Democrats.
“There is still more of a need for us to bring in some fresh blood into this party and help rejuvenate it,” he said, “and show people how the party is changing in the wake of a pretty major loss last election cycle.”
Hoag sees a party in turmoil that needs generational change. Only one House member is in his 20s, and the vast majority of older congressional members are expected to run for reelection.
Nadler and a few other Democratic representatives would seem to agree. He told the NY Times, “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that.” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81, announced in the spring she wouldn’t seek reelection, saying, “It is now time for me to pass the baton,” and she praised the “new voices” like Hogg, so sharp, so articulate, so self-assured. It’s wonderful.”
As Democrats search for a path out of the political wilderness, they have faced a push for fresh faces from voters and activists who have urged their leaders to mount a more visible resistance to President Donald Trump. The impatience from younger Democrats has led several primary challengers to attempt to turn incumbents’ age into a liability. Three House Democrats have died in office this year, further fueling the contentious debate on the left.
“The boomer generation has held on to some of these seats for a long time,” said New York City-based Democratic strategist Evan Thies. “And we saw in the last election that even very accomplished, highly competent and productive elected officials are now at risk of not winning their elections simply because they’re older.”
Good story, although a 30K view of Congress from all sides of the aisle would be journalistically better. Not that I disagree with the changing of the guard for Democrats, I think it’s more than age of the incumbent. The far left progressives have been making inroads as age and time catch up with the older moderates, like me. Biden both slowed it down by winning, but in 2024, his actions expedited their desire to rule the roost as moderation failed to bring home the Presidential bacon. For my evidence, I go to PEW, 2025, like the author, who states:
“About two-thirds of voters ages 18 to 24 (66%) associate with the Democratic Party, compared with 34% who align with the GOP.
There is a similarly large gap in the partisan affiliation of voters ages 25 to 29 (64% are Democrats or lean that way vs. 32% for Republicans).
Voters in their 30s also tilt Democratic, though to a lesser extent: 55% are Democrats or Democratic leaners, 42% are Republicans or Republican leaners.
Half of voters in their 40s associate with the Democratic Party, and 47% are affiliated with the Republican Party. The shares are reversed among voters in their 50s: 50% align with the Republicans, 47% with the Democrats. Republican alignment is 10 percentage points higher than Democratic alignment (53% vs. 43%) among voters in their 60s.
Voters ages 70 to 79 are slightly more likely to be aligned with the GOP (51%) than the Democratic Party (46%). About six-in-ten voters 80 and older (58%) identify with or lean toward the GOP, while 39% associate with the Democratic Party.”
So, you can see we are going younger, you are lagging a bit. Given the ancient dithering swollen ankle guy at the top, it figures.
And in Congress, from PEW again: “Overall, the median age of House Democrats is 57.6, while the median age of House Republicans is 57.5.
“In the Senate, the median age of all Democrats is 66.0, a bit higher than the median for Republicans 64.5.
New members in Congress are basically much younger, but according to PEW: “In the House, the 30 newly elected first-time Republican representatives skew a bit older than their 31 Democratic counterparts: The median age of freshmen House Republicans is 51.7, compared with 50.2 for first-time Democrats in that chamber.” So, our time has been coming, it’s here, and you are up next! Starting with Mr. Pudgy Ankles at the top!! NO THIRD TERM. Because, (and a one and a two and a..)
“Old and in the way, that’s what I heard them say
They used to heed the words he said, but that was yesterday
Gold will turn to gray and youth will fade away
They’ll never care about you, call you old and in the way”
Tis life and will happen every generation. I think the 2024 Biden debacle is accelerating this, such is life. I had said as much well before the 2024 and noted our ability to hold the center was eroding rapidly due to our actions, or more important, inaction and inability to stop this guy who captured the American heart for a moment. My issue is our candidates are losing the center, heading more progressively left. Your actions, or inability to listen to us does not help that progression, just exacerbates it. Remember, you guys turned hard right first, now it’s our turn. Buckle up, buttercups.
I just hope both sides can return to center ASAP, this fringe stuff is not productive. It’s like the old saying: Go alone, and go fast. Or go together and go far. Dictators and Kings can go very fast but they go alone and that’s bad for us, together, to go far.
FYI: I am a tennis fan. Similar thing happens at least once a generation. Today, the women’s old guard is gone, the new lioness’ are still duking it out, but a few leaders are beginning to emerge. Good chance some Americans can break into this leadership circle too, but they better move fast as the top seeds are becoming entrenched. In the men’s, one old guard remains, one man is King, and he will be dethroned any day now, if he even plays next year. A new lion has emerged, he is not entrenched yet, but the lion’s throne is still up for grabs, much chaos in the seeds, and a leaders-circle has yet to emerge. Any day now, but not yet. Again, many Americans, and with this year’s Open having the best weather ever: USA tennis is back, baby. It’s back and McEnroe tells all and the John Madden of tennis. That’s right: bad boys can come back!!!
But it’s really fun to watch the changing of the guard, the maturing of the field, and even the exit of the old guard. I sighed when Federer, Nadal left; twas a great moment. And I have been watching this since Bjorn Borg in the 70’s. He ruled, retired early, then tried a come back with a wooden racket in a steel and fiberglass world —– oh, was that a tragedy. It’s nice when the old guard retires with honor, naming and mentoring successors to take us all forward. That, and a 134mph serve are the good things in life.
Life is a funny duck.
America needs to set an age limit on all legislators,
Age so we don’t have to have career legislators. I feel that once a person reaches their 70s they shouldn’t be in office. Their cognizance is jeopardized because their mind doesn’t function as well.
We should have a law that a legislator should retire when he hits 70 years of age.
We need new minds and fresh ideas to govern in America. And we also shouldn’t allow foreigners who hate America serve in our legislation offices. They should be considered dangerous in their reasoning and thinking. America is a land of immigrants. But those immigrants should seek citizenship to remain in our country. After 2 years they should be going through citizenship classes. And they should assimilate into our American culture and language.
I supported and still support President Trump because he loves America and our people and he has their interest at heart. He only wants the best for “ALL” Americans in our country.
That also applies to Presidents as well.
Age limits should start for candidates in their mid 40s and last, if reelected, to their late 60s.
And the laws of our land should rule over any lawlessness and should be punished accordingly. Democrats love lawlessness which they allowed during Biden’s term. We are a country of law and order. We are not barbarians nor terrorists. And “peaceful protesting” should be defined as protesting without violence and hate. Which the democrats love to do.
Have you noticed that when Republicans don’t agree with a decision by a democrat president, they don’t riot, burn, loot or murder anyone. Democrats should follow our example.
Manny, good response, I enjoyed it. Until your untrue comments re: Democrats and law n order, protests and whatever. You own 1/6/2021, one violent protest with over 140 cops injured and over 1,600 convicted, most for ugly protests, but some for assaulting police up to seditious conspiracy. And Trump pardoned them all, even the cop beaters. And many have been convicted again proving what good move the pardons were. Not. No, son, you have some pretty raucous protests, you own most of the mass murders and shootings, and law and order —– you let them all go. How about that Maxwell at Club Fed just for NOT spilling the beans.
But to your point that I think is a good response: anything to increase the competency of Congress is a good thing, IMO.
I think a yearly competency test for all over 70 might be a fairer and more equitable way to accomplish your goal. First, if you set an age limit of 70, you have no Trump (twice), Biden, Reagan, Eisenhower, and really (like almost 70), Jackson and Buchannon. Maybe you’re right, heh, heh. For Congress, it would be a tsunami of people gone. IMO, age and experience, especially in the Senate, is a good thing. For the House, not so much. It takes years to become fluent in Senatorial process and procedures, and not being so just means you can’t get things done.
I, for one, don’t mind our elders leading us along our way. Especially in the Senate where I feel, without a lot of experience in both life and Senate life, Senators don’t have a chance of being effective, on average. Whether it be a Reid or a McConnell, there’s something to be said for these men of experience and how said experience helps them make things happen in the Senate, a most difficult proposition, as designed, by the Founders. Laws are supposed to be very hard to make, or change.
But it would be nice to establish a competency test to be sure, IMO.
Hamilton set the stage on the fragilities of Democracy when he said: “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” It’s clear the founders looked at democracy and determined: nah, we need a bit more than one man, one vote, mob rule. Thus we made all States equal in the Senate, not the biggest or richest rules. We made two chambers in the Congress so issues could be started or debated from either House, Senate, or both.
Washington on the pause for the cause to make law: “It always has been, and will continue to be, my earnest desire to learn and to comply, as far as is consistent, with the public sentiment; but it is on great occasions only, and after time has been given for cool and deliberate reflection, that the real voice of the people can be known.” The founders realized that ruling by fad, emotions, or buzz-of-the-day would be our ruination and that our system should foster “cool and deliberate reflection,” even is that means establishing the clusterfuck of a system we call Congress.
Madison describes WHY the founders made the making of laws so difficult: “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” IMO, the majority of “auxiliary precautions” is the complexity of getting things done in Congress.
In Federalist 62, Madison sums up: “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate, is the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence first of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller states would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other states, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger states will always be able by their power over the supplies to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser states; and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.”
Manny, in the beginning I was for a total democracy and believed the internet could help deliver it by giving all men an instantaneous single vote on any issue or law. As I age, I see the wisdom of the founders to create a system where it’s really, really, hard to get anything done without concurrence or compromise amongst every single faction in the US or our government. I mean really, this shit the founders wrote still is alive, pertinent, and valid today. I now believe the roadblocks of power (separate, but equal branched of government), state’s rights (minimalized Federal control), and two houses of Congress is pure genius to make us pause and consider anything we do. Even in Congress, I support the traditional filibuster, super majority, whatever —— anything to slow down the making or remaking of law, so we can pause, consider, compromise, and attempt to include all in the decision is as good for us today as it was for the founders way back then,
I continue to stand in awe of the genius of the founders. My appreciation grows each time I read what they said.
Go alone and go fast.
Go together and go far.
I like far over fast.
Manny, you got me thinking about age and the birth of our country, so I looked up and hooked up the founders. While certainly younger, one might say punk firebrand types, really looks more like family-guys looked to protect, grow, and prosper. They were young by our standards, middle-aged to older by their standards and indeed, brave men to put their lives at risk instead of tending to families during peak earning years. BUT —- times were different, age was different, and we did have their elders with them from the first glimmer of us as a nation.
Here we go, from AI: “The Founding Fathers, a term for the leaders of the American Revolution, were a diverse group with ages ranging from their twenties to their eighties. The group includes the men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, as well as the delegates who drafted and signed the Constitution in 1787, 11 years later.
Declaration of Independence (1776)
The signers of the Declaration of Independence ranged in age from 26 to 70.
Youngest: Edward Rutledge and Thomas Lynch Jr., both 26.
Oldest: Benjamin Franklin, 70.
Other key ages in 1776:
Thomas Jefferson: 33
John Adams: 40
George Washington: 44 (as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, he did not sign the Declaration)
Samuel Adams: 53
John Hancock: 40
Constitutional Convention (1787)
The delegates who created the Constitution were slightly younger on average than the signers of the Declaration, with an average age of 42.
Youngest: Jonathan Dayton, 26.
Oldest: Benjamin Franklin, 81.
Other key ages in 1787:
Alexander Hamilton: 32
James Madison: 36
George Washington: 55
Gouverneur Morris: 35”
But wait, there’s more. Our lifespan is 78; theirs was 38. We lost a couple of years of lifespan during Trump’s covid response. So, as a percentage of life expectancy, and all that goes with getting older, these guys were really old while 70 for us, not so bad. Matter of fact, most signers of the Declaration were past their stated shelf life…
Just saying.
PS: I bet, all in all, they were really glad to have Franklin in the room. Wonder if this eccentric fellow could of passed the competency test?
What Dunger means is that we should always respect our elders. Even if they are democrats? Ewww!!!
Seth is a four letter word worthy of scrapping off one’s boots. As in bull-seth. Thanks for making my day by going out of your way to attempt to slay me. It’s a strange obsession you have with dehumanizing me I guess so you can feel better? No talk on topic, just trash talk and making up how I feel. I’m so in your head that you dream about how I feel about things important to you, and no one else. My fake persona seems to live inside your brain. How sad. I get a chuckle about being your ear worm. FYI: attacking me will not change your life. Calling me names only belittles you. Ridding America of Democrats will not change your life. Inflation will still be your life; rising prices and rising unemployment will be your life, accepting taxation without representation will still be your life. But the Democratic cities that you avoid will have less crime until the army leaves, you will face less illegal immigrants that you don’t face today but they will still be there, and you can feel free to be a Christian baby maker again. Oh boy, life with Trump is so, so much better.
We all can see that you cannot debate anything successfully so you demean and dehumanize your self-professed “enemies” as if that will make your life better. So sad. Sigh.
Dunger doesn’t do any debating. He just speaks bullshit
I spell my name: danger. Ernie can’t.
Debating? Beyond brilliant arguments like yours, there is no debate.
For example, let’s see the “bullshit” you speak of. Remember — opinions don’t count, they are always not bullshit. But on the rest, step up to the line and show us the bullshit. Or STFU bullshitter.
I am betting Ernie’s got nothing but crickets.