Why is the House Republican Leadership so much younger?

[Beet]

Aside from Boehner, that is.

John Boehner - born 1949. (elected to Congress 1990)
Kevin McCarthy - born 1965. (elected to Congress 2006)
Steve Scalise - born 1965. (elected to Congress 2008)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers - born 1969. (elected to Congress 2004)
James Lankford - born 1968. (elected to Congress 2011)

All born 1965-69.

Now the Democratic caucus...

Nancy Pelosi - born 1940. (elected to Congress 1987)
Steny Hoyer - born 1939. (elected to Congress 1981)
James Clyburn - born 1940. (elected to Congress 1992)
Xavier Becerra - born 1958. (elected to Congress 1992)

[IceSpear]

I'm guessing that Pelosi/Hoyer/Clyburn will all be gone within a decade, so I doubt this trend will hold.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The median age of House Republicans is lower than that of House Democrats. Why the leadership is that much younger is a bit odd though.

[bedstuy]

The Republicans who would be the elder statesmen had to leave Congress in shame, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert.  It's tough being totally corrupt and morally bankrupt because eventually it brings you down.

[Beet]

But how do people who are in Congress only 6-8 get elected to majority leader and whip? You'd think those who have been in for decades would have more time to build up seniority, connections, fundraising, etc. and would have long since gamed the system to favor themselves. Maybe I just transfer the Senate mindset over to the House too much. But it's strange to think that someone elected a couple years ago could be a Congressional leader in 4-6 years.

[bedstuy]

But how do people who are in Congress only 6-8 get elected to majority leader and whip? You'd think those who have been in for decades would have more time to build up seniority, connections, fundraising, etc. and would have long since gamed the system to favor themselves. Maybe I just transfer the Senate mindset over to the House too much. But it's strange to think that someone elected a couple years ago could be a Congressional leader in 4-6 years.

There are people who just get in the House in a safe district and don't want to hustle.  Other people want to get in the leadership and put themselves on that career path.  Those people tended to flame out more quickly in Republican politics. 

[Nichlemn]

Democrats dominate the longest serving Congressmen (current as well of all time), too. I wonder if there's something to that, or maybe it's just a consequence of Democrats' long dominance of Congress until 1994. (You're more likely to stick around if you can chair a committee or maybe rise to Speaker).

[bullmoose88]

Older=wiser?

Bada-cha. I'll be here all week.

[Orser67]

I wonder if Democrats generally have more of a mindset that seniority is a good thing, while Republicans are more mixed on the issue. For example, Republicans have committee chair term limits and Democrats don't.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Back in 2011 I made a list of the GOP house members to see when they were elected. Something like 70% were elected in 2002 or a subsequent election.

[memphis]

The Republicans are much better than the Democrats at marketing. They understand sales and how people decide what to buy. The Democrats are more interested in developing good policy than selling it to the public. The results of this extend far beyond who gets to be leader.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Republicans are much better than the Democrats at marketing. They understand sales and how people decide what to buy.

Is that why there is a giant orange squirrel reminding people how much they love the 1990's stalking Hillary?

[AggregateDemand]

The Republicans are much better than the Democrats at marketing. They understand sales and how people decide what to buy. The Democrats are more interested in developing good policy than selling it to the public. The results of this extend far beyond who gets to be leader.

Is today opposite day? The Democratic Party is mostly policy vaporware and social identity optics. The party is powered by AFL-CIO, UAW, Planned Parenthood, ACORN, ACLU, etc. Why do you think Dems used a modified Republican healthcare reform bill as ACA? They didn't have anything else. Democrats focus on engineering elections, and that's why the gloat about the browning of America and the liberal social attitudes of the youngs.

The Republican Party is structure, internal rules, and high-profile think tanks that churn out policy directives by the hundreds. Heritage, CATO, RAND, Citizens United, Tax Foundation, etc. Republicans are constantly knee-capped by their attempts to further identity politics because they always devolve into NRA fantasy and fundamentalist evangelism.

[memphis]

The Republicans are much better than the Democrats at marketing. They understand sales and how people decide what to buy. The Democrats are more interested in developing good policy than selling it to the public. The results of this extend far beyond who gets to be leader.

Is today opposite day? The Democratic Party is mostly policy vaporware and social identity optics. The party is powered by AFL-CIO, UAW, Planned Parenthood, ACORN, ACLU, etc. Why do you think Dems used a modified Republican healthcare reform bill as ACA? They didn't have anything else. Democrats focus on engineering elections, and that's why the gloat about the browning of America and the liberal social attitudes of the youngs.

The Republican Party is structure, internal rules, and high-profile think tanks that churn out policy directives by the hundreds. Heritage, CATO, RAND, Citizens United, Tax Foundation, etc. Republicans are constantly knee-capped by their attempts to further identity politics because they always devolve into NRA fantasy and fundamentalist evangelism.

The NRA and the fundies constitute a larger share of the electorate than any "identity" the Dems play to and the GOP go after them much more overtly and shamelessly. The Dems, having embraced neoliberal ideals for a generation now, don't even prentend to do much for organized labor anymore. In contrast, the GOP seize every opportunity to propose constutional amendments to ban gay marriage, filibuster the most common sense background checks for gun purchases, ban Shariah law, and so on. The GOP is, at its core, an organization hellbent on corporate plutocracy, but they are well attuned to what needs to be done to accomplish those means through the democratic process.

[AggregateDemand]

The NRA and the fundies constitute a larger share of the electorate than any "identity" the Dems play to and the GOP go after them much more overtly and shamelessly. The Dems, having embraced neoliberal ideals for a generation now, don't even prentend to do much for organized labor anymore. In contrast, the GOP seize every opportunity to propose constutional amendments to ban gay marriage, filibuster the most common sense background checks for gun purchases, ban Shariah law, and so on. The GOP is, at its core, an organization hellbent on corporate plutocracy, but they are well attuned to what needs to be done to accomplish those means through the democratic process.

If Republicans aggressively court the NRA demographic, why does the NRA issue report cards for every federal politician? Besides Texas and a few Rocky Mountain states, the NRA intimidates people into compliance, particularly those who believe in gun-rights, but may not enjoy the gray-market activities at gun shows or online. Furthermore, AWB 1994 was probably the worst lame-duck "gun control" legislation ever passed into law. Democrats threw away their political capital. No underhanded right-wing political tactics were necessary.

The only high-profile Democrat to openly embrace neoliberalism was Clinton, and he was only able to embrace neoliberalism after his own party was deposed in the 1994 midterms. Neoliberals would never protect social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, education, etc in their current guise. New Dealers believe that social spending should be socially just with little or no emphasis on economic productivity. Obama says "hands off of entitlements". What socioeconomic school of thought would qualify his remarks?

Low income tax rates for upper-income-earners do not create corporate plutocracy. Quite the opposite, in fact, since non-corporate business income/taxes are generally filed on the owners' 1040s. The Clinton and Obama tax rates could be construed as corporate protectionism, but if you understood how taxation works, you might not vote Democrat. Somehow the Democratic Party has led itself to believe that targeting CEOs and other high profile employees, is synonymous with targeting the asset-owning elites. Naturally, the plutocrats become entrenched.

Democrat Party is primarily vaporware and a confused melange of social initiatives. It's not because they are stupid, it's because they have nothing else. Republicans captured virtually all neoliberal territory in the 1970s and 1980s. Democrats are stuck with the same tired rhetoric from the 1960s. No more Vietnam. No more racism. No more persecution of gays. A bunch of flower-children having one last demonstration before they croak.

[Mister Mets]

Republicans are more likely to believe in term limits and the disadvantages of having career politicians, so that comes with less respect for legislative seniority.

A change for Democrats is that African-Americans and women have been able to achieve significant seniority. Liberals are less likely to support any change in policy now that they have some diversity in the congressional leadership.

It's related to the same reason Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner for the presidential nomination of a party that doesn't typically reward also-rans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans are more likely to believe in term limits and the disadvantages of having career politicians, so that comes with less respect for legislative seniority.

A change for Democrats is that African-Americans and women have been able to achieve significant seniority. Liberals are less likely to support any change in policy now that they have some diversity in the congressional leadership.

It's related to the same reason Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner for the presidential nomination of a party that doesn't typically reward also-rans.

Eh, Democratic seats tend to be safer than Republican seats. They have so many votes wasted in their safeness. Even the median Illinois legislature seat is more Republican than the state as a whole, and so the distribution of voters into districts favors Republicans with some ultra Democrat seats with wasted votes. You can bet that it's worse in any state where Democrats weren't drawing the maps.