question about open, safe seats

[freepcrusher]

if you are a power broker in that area (state or county party or whatever) do you try running a relatively young candidate in hopes that he can stay there for 30 or so years and get a committee chairmanship and bring pork back home?

Because the age you first enter politics is probably the biggest indicator of whether or not you become a committee chairman and if you have the power to decide who becomes the anointed successor (being a safe district and all) wouldn't you want to try to bring a young person in and have him become a chairman?

IMO, the main reason why Pat Leahy or Max Baucus are committee chairman had more to do with their age when they got first elected more than anything else. That's not to say they aren't talented politicians (when they clearly are) but it gave them more time to climb the seniority ladder while still being under the age of 75.

[Zioneer]

Because young candidates don't always have enough experience and skill to be considered serious contenders in the first place. You don't want to lose an easy seat because your young protege didn't prove up to the task of getting elected, after all.

[RogueBeaver]

Dems probably. Given how anti-establishment/incumbency the GOP is these days (a fair few candidates or incumbents are self-limiting to 2 terms) looks somewhat unlikely. Everything else being equal I prefer a young candidate if they're qualified and promising.

[tmthforu94]

I prefer the younger candidate usually in safe GOP seats, while I tend to prefer the most electable in states not solidly in the GOP column.

[Torie]

Between self financed candidates, and focused interest groups like public employee unions, the Evangelical network, and now mega PACS and the like, the party leadership I think has largely in most places has lost most of its influence as to who gets nominated. So the best route is to make about 10 million bucks doing something, and then being willing to spend a chunk of that. It's a jungle out there.